VAR thread 2022/23

[Paladin]

Regarding Rashford's goal last night, I notice they miraculously managed to find the freeze frame without a blurred ball (meaning the ball may not actually have been passed forward at that point in time). Shame they can't find the same point for our offside decisions.

It's amazing how far a fast athlete can travel in that fraction of a second between a relatively still ball and a passed ball. Or maybe they are using extra fast cameras for United games.

 

[halfcenturyup]

It was introduced last season 21/22 giving an extra 5cm to the attacking player.
Dale Johnson has reported it loads of times.
His weekly summary of VAR decisions is good - better than the likes of nuggets like peter walton - and he explains why decisions are made with reference to current rule interpretations. It doesn't mean he necessarily agrees with the decision.

Well now, that is the most complete and interesting review of VAR decisions I have seen. Followed.

For Trippier, as some of us thought, the red was rescinded because the ref thought he saw studs to knee, and VAR showed it wasn't (At least that is what they are saying now. Who knows, if we can't hear the discussions in real time?). It was boot to knee or, rather surprisingly, based on a still, boot to shin.

Only thing I would say is that for serious foul play you don't need excessive force or brutality for a red when a player "lunges". Endangering an opponent is enough. I still maintain any lunge that high, at that speed is endangering an opponent. But I am not a ref and don't have access to other guidelines, nor does anybody else, so who the fuck knows?

 

[halfcenturyup]

Regarding Rashford's goal last night, I notice they miraculously managed to find the freeze frame without a blurred ball (meaning the ball may not actually have been passed forward at that point in time). Shame they can't find the same point for our offside decisions.

It's amazing how far a fast athlete can travel in that fraction of a second between a relatively still ball and a passed ball. Or maybe they are using extra fast cameras for United games.

Tbf, I think they are getting there with these new, overlapping lines.

The last thing they need to do is address the issue of frames, maybe by using one clearly as the ball has been passed (as they do now) but then also check the frame before and if it gives a different result then give benefit of doubt to the attacker.

 

[bluenova]

The point is, there are opposing, equally valid opinions of the same event. Neither opinion is necessarily right or wrong under the LOTG.

My opinion is that it should have been a yellow card. But the referee's first thought was that it was red. He was much closer than I was, with an excellent view of the incident. VAR (in my view) isn't there to offer alternative opinions, but to arbitrate on contentious judgements of fact.

From the guidance in the LOTG: "The original decision given by the referee will not be changed unless the video review clearly shows that the decision was a 'clear and obvious error'." The opinion that it was a red card was not an error!

That was my first thought - but if the ref thinks he saw something different - e.g. studs up straight into the knee - and that's not what happened, then that's an error.

 

[Stephen230]

It's ironic that VAR was sold as removing controversial decisions, yet here we are. Blues arguing over controversial decisions.

It wasn’t actually ever sold as that. No one giving it more than a few seconds thought would ever have claimed that is possible.

I recall reading an article while it was being trialled. I can’t remember who wrote it now but they claimed that their stats show at the elite level referees get 96% of decisions correct. Their aim with VAR was to initially get that figure up to 97/98% and then eventually 99%. Of course with subjective decisions it is only possible to have an opinion on whether a decision is deemed ‘correct’ though.

 

[halfcenturyup]

Anyone know how referees judge "endangering an opponent"?

Last word from me on Trippier. If endangering an opponent during a "lunge" requires something like studs into leg (in this instance) then I can clearly see why i) the ref gave the red as that is what it looked like to him and ii) why it was corrected to a yellow.

If it is more nuanced than that (like for example off the ground/out of control), then there is more to discuss ....

 

[Pablo ZZZ Peroni]

Well now, that is the most complete and interesting review of VAR decisions I have seen. Followed.

For Trippier, as some of us thought, the red was rescinded because the ref thought he saw studs to knee, and VAR showed it wasn't (At least that is what they are saying now. Who knows, if we can't hear the discussions in real time?). It was boot to knee or, rather surprisingly, based on a still, boot to shin.

Only thing I would say is that for serious foul play you don't need excessive force or brutality for a red when a player "lunges". Endangering an opponent is enough. I still maintain any lunge that high, at that speed is endangering an opponent. But I am not a ref and don't have access to other guidelines, nor does anybody else, so who the fuck knows?

Agree with all of that and Dale Johnson is the definite go-to IMO.

 

[Bluesince1979]

I hope more goals are giving when so tight. If its not immediately obvious that its off side then GOAL

AS long as it happens for every such goal that is …. Hmmmm

 

[Alan Harper's Tash]

I hope more goals are giving when so tight. If its not immediately obvious that its off side then GOAL

AS long as it happens for every such goal that is …. Hmmmm

I think the camera angles at the Swamp aren’t great for judging offsides either way. There was one last season that looked way offside from one angle and onside from another.

 

[tregyblue61]

I didn't watch the game but I have seen a number of angles of the fish fingers boys "goal."

I've used the grass line as a guide and can clearly see fish finger boy is closer the the line than Trunt A.

Offside. Simples.