VAR thread 2022/23

  • Thread starter Thread starter Ric
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Paladin said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
BlueHammer85 said:
www.espn.co.uk

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 www.espn.co.uk
Click to expand...
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 ..
 
The Light Was Yellow Sir said:
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.
Click to expand...
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 ..
 
The Light Was Yellow Sir said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Alan Harper's Tash said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
AirbagsOptionalTheReturn said:
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?
Click to expand...

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.
 
deano ou812 said:
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 ..
Click to expand...

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
 
BlueHammer85 said:
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
Click to expand...
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.
 
SebastianBlue said:
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.
Click to expand...
Your “on balances of probability” doesn’t imply guilt though. It suggests it is likely without proving it.

In a witness box, you could say that you believe it to be corrupt, or at the very least open to corruption, without having the data to prove it fully.

The game would be far easier to manipulate without VAR, so if FIFA or UEFA wanted to manipulate results at will, they’d have not brought in VAR. They could have hidden it by suggesting football should be the same at park level as professional.
 
SebastianBlue said:
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.
Click to expand...

You are, of course, right. I am not sure why there is any debate about it.
 
Alan Harper's Tash said:
Your “on balances of probability” doesn’t imply guilt though. It suggests it is likely without proving it.

In a witness box, you could say that you believe it to be corrupt, or at the very least open to corruption, without having the data to prove it fully.

The game would be far easier to manipulate without VAR, so if FIFA or UEFA wanted to manipulate results at will, they’d have not brought in VAR. They could have hidden it by suggesting football should be the same at park level as professional.
Click to expand...
There was far too much fan and professional pressure to bring in a video review system for the top echelons of football for them to resist. And even then they did so *decades* after it had been implemented and refined in other major sports around the world.

That meant they were forced to construct and implement the system and, in the case of the PL, they did so in a baffling and highly suspect manner, choosing opacity over transparency at practically every design point and milestone.

You continually reject nuance of the system/history of the game, the various governing bodies difficult to justify choices when it comes to the design, implementation, and use of the system, and the broad historical evidence of corruption in the PL and across football as a whole. And that is quite odd.

And your stance that the PL is the only league in the history of the world without systemic corruption is astounding, to be honest.

It appears you may want to cling on to the delusion that the sport is pure and above the corruption of the rest of the world.

That’s not something I can do. I have seen how the very same people that own and operate these clubs behaved at their non-football related companies and understand that such unscrupulous behaviour does not simply cease when they open the inbox for the club email.
 
SebastianBlue said:
There was far too much fan and professional pressure to bring in a video review system for the top echelons of football for them to resist. And even then they did so *decades* after it had been implemented and refined in other major sports around the world.

That meant they were forced to construct and implement the system and, in the case of the PL, they did so in a baffling and highly suspect manner, choosing opacity over transparency at practically every design point and milestone.

You continually reject nuance of the system/history of the game, the various governing bodies difficult to justify choices when it comes to the design, implement, and use of the system, and the broad historical evidence of corruption in the PL and across football as a whole. And that is quite odd.

And your stance that the PL is the only league in the history of the world without systemic corruption is astounding, to be honest.

It appears you may want to cling on to delusion that the sport is pure and above the corruption of the rest of the world.

That’s not something I can do. I have seen how the very same people that own and operate these clubs behaved at their non-football related companies and understand that such unscrupulous behaviour does not simply cease when they open the inbox for the club email address.
Click to expand...
They don’t usually bother with what fans want. They usually decide based on profits. They could easily have said no to technology.

Which evidence of corruption is being ignored?
Which nuance of the system/history is being ignored?

At no point have I suggested any league hasn’t been open or been corrupt. Are you sure you are replying to the right poster?

You can tell me in infinite number of times that you believe that the system is corrupt. You haven’t proven it to be so to me. Maybe that’s of my doing and my burden of proof is higher than yours. Who knows?

I’ll bow to your superior knowledge of your last paragraph. I simply don’t have the professional experience of football club owners.
 
Alan Harper's Tash said:
They don’t usually bother with what fans want. They usually decide based on profits. They could easily have said no to technology.

Which evidence of corruption is being ignored?
Which nuance of the system/history is being ignored?

At no point have I suggested any league hasn’t been open or been corrupt. Are you sure you are replying to the right poster?

You can tell me in infinite number of times that you believe that the system is corrupt. You haven’t proven it to be so to me. Maybe that’s of my doing and my burden of proof is higher than yours. Who knows?

I’ll bow to your superior knowledge of your last paragraph. I simply don’t have the professional experience of football club owners.
Click to expand...
You seem to be continually arguing that VAR is never used to attempt to manipulate match outcomes.

Are am I misunderstanding your position.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Unread Posts

Don't have an account? Register now and see fewer ads!

SIGN UP
Back
Top