VAR thread 2022/23

[bluenova]

RE this "tolerance" amendment - I have asked around about it and I have not found one person who knew about it. Personally the rashford goal was the first time I have heard it mentioned - make of that what you want.

It was announced before last season, and has been used multiple times since. Pretty sure someone said United have had two goals against them allowed because of it last season, so it's not biased towards them so far.

 

[Dave Ewing's Back 'eader]

RE this "tolerance" amendment - I have asked around about it and I have not found one person who knew about it. Personally the rashford goal was the first time I have heard it mentioned - make of that what you want.

Ah, that's probably because Rashford scored it and he was wearing the Devil's kit! probably won't be heard of again, until he gets another 'toenailer'!

 

[moomba]

Would have been great for the TV to analyse the offside decision and explain why it was given rather than 2 seconds of footage, and a quick "onside, move on".

 

[Stephen230]

RE this "tolerance" amendment - I have asked around about it and I have not found one person who knew about it. Personally the rashford goal was the first time I have heard it mentioned - make of that what you want.

I’ll try and word this a bit more politely than I came across last time. But there were journalists on Twitter who discussed it at great length before the start of last season. I also remember it been discussed on one of those Sunday morning Sky Sports programmes. Just because you’re not aware of something it doesn’t automatically make it sinister.

 

[Trevor Morley's Tache]

I don't think there's human input into the actual decision. They can't choose to move a line, or make a decision on when the ball is moved.

I'm not a conspiracy theorist, but do believe that bias (mostly unconscious) could affect decisions where the human has some control. To change this it would involve seeing a decision on screen and then not passing that on to the ref. That's an active decision clearly made in front of everyone with access to the feed, all the techs involved, everyone sitting in the VAR room, and would involve justifying after the match why no decision was made. That just isn't realistically going to happen.

With all the money swilling round in the game (legal/illegal gambling, sponsorship, prize money etc.) there will always be people willing to exploit the situation to satisfy their own greed. If there is a way to manipulate decisions for personal financial gain, somebody somewhere will have worked out how it can be done, and through social engineering it wouldn't take too much work to put someone into a position where they can effect change in some way, shape or form.

I'm not sure that VAR is or ever will be immune from this. In fact, VAR might just be the perfect method of cheating, because if you convince enough people it is infallible when it isn't then nobody will suspect a thing.

 

[Grassland Blue]

In theory it should be able to work out almost exact positions.

At the moment, you're stuck with frame rate, and having to choose between two frames, guessing which is the best. Even if the computer was assuming steady motion between each frame, then it would clearly be more accurate - after all the biggest margin of error is based on a runner at full speed, and those movements are going to the most predictable and smooth. The ones where the player is moving slowly or changing direction will be more complex, but of course already have a much smaller margin of error.

However AI should be much cleverer than assuming steady motion. It's not as if we're watching 22 Ian Curtis's jerking about randomly across the pitch. We're watching people who will speed up and slow down over multiple frames, who will be making relatively infrequent and fairly predictable changes in direction (infrequent in that they won't change direction multiple times a second, and predictable to a computer in hindsight).

Every movement in your body is signalled by movements elsewhere in the body - so if the AI has data from all over the body, it can predict what's expected to happen to other parts of the body. If you're going to change direction, or set off on a run, or make a feint, then different small movements all over your body will signal that, and a computer that's watched a million players doing exactly the same motion will be able to predict what happens next pretty accurately.

If you have to spend more than ,say, 30 seconds deciding if there has been an infringement, then in my eyes it's not a clear and obvious mistake and the referees' decision should stand.

 

[jjctid]

I’ll try and word this a bit more politely than I came across last time. But there were journalists on Twitter who discussed it at great length before the start of last season. I also remember it been discussed on one of those Sunday morning Sky Sports programmes. Just because you’re not aware of something it doesn’t automatically make it sinister.

I am not saying it was not discussed OR that there is anything sinister involved ( although I would like to see 1 of our borderline offside goals awarded with such speed ) All I am saying is that of all my friends and colleagues ( all with the same media connectivity ) that not one had not heard of the new "tolerance" guidelines. Finally I would be fairly certain that our lack of awareness of said guidelines would also put is in a large majority.

 

[bluenova]

With all the money swilling round in the game (legal/illegal gambling, sponsorship, prize money etc.) there will always be people willing to exploit the situation to satisfy their own greed. If there is a way to manipulate decisions for personal financial gain, somebody somewhere will have worked out how it can be done, and through social engineering it wouldn't take too much work to put someone into a position where they can effect change in some way, shape or form.

I'm not sure that VAR is or ever will be immune from this.

Hmmm... I would suggest that trying to override an automatic decision, in front of a variety of people from different organisations, that is expected to be shown in the stadium and on TV is Ocean's 11 level scamming :)

 

[The Future’s Blue!]

I am not saying it was not discussed OR that there is anything sinister involved ( although I would like to see 1 of our borderline offside goals awarded with such speed ) All I am saying is that of all my friends and colleagues ( all with the same media connectivity ) that not one had not heard of the new "tolerance" guidelines. Finally I would be fairly certain that our lack of awareness of said guidelines would also put is in a large majority.

If the new tolerances had been notified, surely there‘ll be evidence on line.

 

[bluenova]

If you have to spend more than ,say, 30 seconds deciding if there has been an infringement, then in my eyes it's not a clear and obvious mistake and the referees' decision should stand.

This only applies to offsides, and the computer decision will be pretty much instant - so no ones eyes will have to decide it if's clear. It apparently cuts down the whole offside process to 25 secs from 70 seconds, but I would guess that it might be even quicker for a goal, as the offside will be flagged to the var team as soon as the player receives the ball. By the time they put it in the net, the video will have been confirmed, and the ref informed.