VAR thread 2022/23

[bluenova]

What you've missed is that this "better angle" clip (that we have since been shown) STOPS as the ball hits the defenders left shoulder. It looked like a "double handball" in real-time, with the right hand (that can be seen in the video) moving across the defender's body and palming the ball away AFTER it had hit the left shoulder, so why stop the video at the point they chose???

It's not what they show you, it's what they don't show you that is important ;)

And it can't be one of those, "it's come off another part of the body before it HITS his hand" moments, because the defender makes a deliberate movement with his right hand towards the ball, so it's a totally different scenario.

Very, very dubious; they think we're fucking stupid!

It didn't stop when they showed it at the end of the BT coverage - they paused it to show it hitting his shoulder and then ran it on showing what happened after it bounced off him.

 

[the-ecstacy-of-eight]

It didn't stop when they showed it at the end of the BT coverage - they paused it to show it hitting his shoulder and then ran it on showing what happened after it bounced off him.

Cool, that's that cleared up then, I'll stand down :) In my defence, it's not surprising that I'm a tiny bit cynical though, is it? ;)

 

[The Future’s Blue!]

Is there a video of the front angle?

 

[Corky]

One for all the VAR lovers in the Florentina V Braga game tonight.

Goal line technology activated the referees watch to signal the ball had crossed the line. The VAR double checked it, as they always do since that malfunction at Villa. And decided the GLT was playing up and no goal was the result.

We had 2 given against us which no way looked order, Vardy 4th in the 4-2 in 2016 and a game shortly before that.

If you see the Sagna clearance behind the goal you don't give it.

 

[Blue Mist]

I think you might be getting hung on the semantics of what a "review" is. It's a formal process in the VAR rules.

They clearly watch the whole match on multiple cameras, and will be rewinding and looking at a couple of seconds of play constantly to see if they've missed anything. IF they spot that the ref may have missed something then they formally review the incident, taking their time to make sure of the decision. We've all seen how long this lasts, with refs regularly holding up throw-ins or goal kicks.

If they can see, either in real time, or with a 2 second replay that there was no offence, then they won't bother formally reviewing it.

I'm not getting hung on any semantics. If what you say happened how did they miss a blatant handball and more importantly why didn't Walton know they had done those checks?
Var blatant did not get involved and, as it didn't, there is no point in having it as it is not their to pick and choose what it looks at.

 

[bluenova]

I'm not getting hung on any semantics. If what you say happened how did they miss a blatant handball and more importantly why didn't Walton know they had done those checks?
Var blatant did not get involved and, as it didn't, there is no point in having it as it is not their to pick and choose what it looks at.

It wasn't a blatant handball. Walton would only get a notification if it goes to a 'review' - not if they saw it clearly almost immediately.

There was another video released to BT later in the show which showed it missed his hands completely and bounced off his shoulder. I linked to it a few posts back. That shows it clearly enough to not warrant a review, which is what Walton guessed happened. I'm not a fan of Peter Walton - he's far too establishment, but in this case he was right.

 

[Blue Mist]

It wasn't a blatant handball. Walton would only get a notification if it goes to a 'review' - not if they saw it clearly almost immediately.

There was another video released to BT later in the show which showed it missed his hands completely and bounced off his shoulder. I linked to it a few posts back. That shows it clearly enough to not warrant a review, which is what Walton guessed happened. I'm not a fan of Peter Walton - he's far too establishment, but in this case he was right.

Ok

 

[Cassandra]

One for all the VAR lovers in the Florentina V Braga game tonight.

Goal line technology activated the referees watch to signal the ball had crossed the line. The VAR double checked it, as they always do since that malfunction at Villa. And decided the GLT was playing up and no goal was the result.

My instincts tell me that I should trust GLT over VAR. I can rationalise this instinct with three bits of evidence. (Assuming the Hawk Eye system was in use)
1) There are six or seven cameras dedicated to studying the goal line, I think that gives more accurate coverage than VAR cameras which are trying to cover larger areas of the pitch.
2) I read that the frame rate for the cameras is 500 fps compared with 50 fps for VAR. so it is quite possible for the ball to cross the line and come back between VAR frames and be shown to have crossed the line by GLT.
3) So far as I am aware the recorded failures of GLT so far have been to fail to award goals where the ball has been shown to cross the line. This makes sense if the ball is obscured from all the cameras. Awarding a goal when the ball has not crossed the line seems to require a more fundamental failure of the system which seems less likely.

Perhaps others with more understanding of the systems would like to comment on these thoughts?

 

[SkyBlueFlux]

One for all the VAR lovers in the Florentina V Braga game tonight.

Goal line technology activated the referees watch to signal the ball had crossed the line. The VAR double checked it, as they always do since that malfunction at Villa. And decided the GLT was playing up and no goal was the result.

I think the referee has had an absolute shocker here.

I scrutinised a video of the goal and there is absolutely no way you can comprehensively say it didn’t cross the line (and you would need to have a very high level of confidence to overrule GLT).

You see the referee moving back and forth between frames on the VAR monitor. The frame in the still image above doesn’t even look like the one where the ball is furthest forward to me, there is at least one other frame where the ball is still moving forwards where it looks further ahead.

As mentioned above the framerate of GLT is 10x greater than broadcast cameras. I think it’s clear the referees didn’t understand that because they decided to overturn it based on two frames which could be either side of the ball crossing the line. Awful decision which just shows how little the referees know about their own limitations.

Sure GLT isn’t infallible as we’ve seen but it needs to be VERY obviously wrong to be overturned.

The only saving grace for this ref is if the Hawkeye team had given them the heads up that they thought something might be off with the calibration and to make a call on the video evidence instead - but I haven’t heard anybody say that’s what happened.

 

[halfcenturyup]

I think the referee has had an absolute shocker here.

I scrutinised a video of the goal and there is absolutely no way you can comprehensively say it didn’t cross the line (and you would need to have a very high level of confidence to overrule GLT).

You see the referee moving back and forth between frames on the VAR monitor. The frame in the still image above doesn’t even look like the one where the ball is furthest forward to me, there is at least one other frame where the ball is still moving forwards where it looks further ahead.

As mentioned above the framerate of GLT is 10x greater than broadcast cameras. I think it’s clear the referees didn’t understand that because they decided to overturn it based on two frames which could be either side of the ball crossing the line. Awful decision which just shows how little the referees know about their own limitations.

Sure GLT isn’t infallible as we’ve seen but it needs to be VERY obviously wrong to be overturned.

The only saving grace for this ref is if the Hawkeye team had given them the heads up that they thought something might be off with the calibration and to make a call on the video evidence instead - but I haven’t heard anybody say that’s what happened.

I am coming to the conclusion that referees just aren't very good, then when you put them in the VAR booth they still aren't very good and also out of their depth technically.

Then, of course, in the PL you have the decisions that can't be explained just by not being very good.