V.A.R. - Good for Purpose??

[Johnny75]

It doesn’t matter. It’s completely irrelevant.

You think Dele Alli is onside (or a similar incidence is). I think that is fucking stupid. I was just checking that is what your new rule was, you have confirmed it. If after all this discussion and evidence you still think it’s a good idea then it’s pointless carrying on as I won’t change your mind. So we will leave it there

It's the only thing that's relevant. The definition of the law is literally what you're arguing about!

You've literally not put a single thing forward on the law as it is, was or how you'd like it to look. I get it that you don't think the Souness law (or whatever SKY are calling it today) works for you, but how about saying what would work for you.

Because all I have so far is you saying no to a suggestion but having a good old moan about VAR and the call yesterday. If you think the call yesterday was wrong, then by how much are you allowed to be offside before you're offside? Or should we just go on opinion?

Moaning about VAR and wanting to go back to the old days and then moaning about ref's and AR's when they inevitably get it wrong is just making people look utterly stupid.

 

[PuntsWolf]

It's the only thing that's relevant. The definition of the law is literally what you're arguing about!

You've literally not put a single thing forward on the law as it is, was or how you'd like it to look. I get it that you don't think the Souness law (or whatever SKY are calling it today) works for you, but how about saying what would work for you.

Because all I have so far is you saying no to a suggestion but having a good old moan about VAR and the call yesterday. If you think the call yesterday was wrong, then by how much are you allowed to be offside before you're offside? Or should we just go on opinion?

Moaning about VAR and wanting to go back to the old days and then moaning about ref's and AR's is just making people look utterly stupid.

Use it how IFAB want it to be. Clear and obvious. Was Dan burn clearly offside - no. Goal given. Was Dele Alli clearly offside - yes goal ruled out. Was Jonny clearly offside - no, goal given.

Draw a line behind the last defender like sky have done for years. Is he clearly over it - no, carry on.
Pukki goal would stand too.

People weren’t moaning about goals like Jonny and Pukki going in against them. People were moaning about easy decisions like Alli going against them. Fix the howler not ruling out good goals by looking for a problem.

IFAB have said how it should be used. Use it that way.

Like this below. As simple as this. Draw a line, is he obviously over it - no. Goal stands. Another one I think the linesman got right but under your stats would be in the 30% they got wrong.

 

[Lupo]

IFAB are spot on and if it was used in such a way even long time VAR critics like me may grow to love it but the Mike Riley version is pretty much like Mike Riley the referee - complete and utter shit

 

[Rui_CostCo]

Just read the IFAB statement, which i think is in line with almost everyones expectations of how VAR would work.

 

[Papper]

So in conclusion - with the advent of technology that leaves no margin of error and somewhat takes the call away from the officials the answer would be to take a more lenient approach to the offside rule. This then of course opens another can of worms. Probably best to leave it to the officials and accept the odd fuck-up as human error.

 

[Johnny75]

Use it how IFAB want it to be. Clear and obvious. Was Dan burn clearly offside - no. Goal given. Was Dele Alli clearly offside - yes goal ruled out. Was Jonny clearly offside - no, goal given.

Draw a line behind the last defender like sky have done for years. Is he clearly over it - no, carry on.
Pukki goal would stand too.

People weren’t moaning about goals like Jonny and Pukki going in against them. People were moaning about easy decisions like Alli going against them. Fix the howler not ruling out good goals by looking for a problem.

IFAB have said how it should be used. Use it that way.

Like this below. As simple as this. Draw a line, is he obviously over it - no. Goal stands. Another one I think the linesman got right but under your stats would be in the 30% they got wrong.

Right, so it's just opinion. Got there in the end.

If we're going down that route then have the AR give a decision and see if there is enough to overrule them. At least then we have a decision on the pitch. But then why would you use it for offside at all, seems all a bit pointless to me, in fact if we're going on opinion then why bother with VAR at all. I'll look forward to people moaning about referees and AR's decisions based on their opinion without even the slightest hint of irony.

And they aren't my stats, they're research papers that I have listed above.

 

[Rui_CostCo]

Ifab 's ststement simply says that if it's NOT clear and obvious VAR shouldnt be used. If it takes 5 minutes and 15 camera angles its not clear and obvious. It all smacks of someone thinking they know better than the guidelines and wanting to take centre stage. Something Stuart Attwell's never been accused of before

 

[PuntsWolf]

Right, so it's just opinion. Got there in the end.

If we're going down that route then have the AR give a decision and see if there is enough to overrule them. At least then we have a decision on the pitch. But then why would you use it for offside at all, seems all a bit pointless to me, in fact if we're going on opinion then why bother with VAR at all. I'll look forward to people moaning about referees and AR's decisions based on their opinion without even the slightest hint of irony.

And they aren't my stats, they're research papers that I have listed above.

Don’t use it for offside at all except the howler then. Job done.

The aubameyang one earlier in the season against Utd for example. Minimal interference, maximum benefit.

 

[Papper]

Ifab 's ststement simply says that if it's NOT clear and obvious VAR shouldnt be used. If it takes 5 minutes and 15 camera angles its not clear and obvious.

Surely if it was clear and obvious then you wouldn't need VAR anyway. The ridiculous fact is that if Neto's goal had not gone to VAR then somebody would have shown later on that Jonny was offside by cause of his hand or whatever it was (which is what has happened for years in the Motd studio and what helped the cause for VAR in the first place). The accuracy cannot exist alongside the subjectivity of the official - they are not mutually benefical (or whatever the word is).

 

[Rui_CostCo]

The reason we have VAR is because clear and obvious mistakes were being made. If Netos goal had stood the MOTD discussion would have been around moutinhos and jonnys perfect timing to get it just right. No one outside stockley park thought the ref and linesman got it wrong including 11 Liverpool players

 

[Parkins left foot]

Have no problem with the principle of VAR, but do with the way it is being used.

3 main problems for me: -

1) the decisions are being amended by people totally remote from the game, undermining the onfield Ref (whether good or bad) & with freeze frame when football is not played in that way & the technology is not accurate enough to decide whether someone is offside by millimetres anyway.

2) The onfield Ref should be advised that he needs to check when a goal is scored & he should rewatch it on the pitchside monitor (otherwise why bother having them) in real time as thats how the game is played. Unless he can see that he has made a clear & obvious error then his original decision should stand. In yesterdays game then the Mane goal would have been given as Lallana didn't handle it & Van Dijk's was not clear at all. Neto's goal would have stood as well. Would the result have stayed there - not with any certainty as the rest of the game would have played out differently.

3) If VAR is being used then there needs to be far better communication of why inside the stadium - a lot of the aggro comes from the fact that often no one in the crowd knows what the hell they are looking at.

We can fiddle about with the rules, but there will always be marginal decisions wherever the line is drawn. Leave decisions to the onfield Ref (as said whether they are good or bad the decisions are likely to be consistent for that game) & watch in real time. If its clear & obvious then overturn, but not otherwise.

There will still be arguments in the pub after but football has always had those.

 

[PuntsWolf]

The reason we have VAR is because clear and obvious mistakes were being made. If Netos goal had stood the MOTD discussion would have been around moutinhos and jonnys perfect timing to get it just right. No one outside stockley park thought the ref and linesman got it wrong including 11 Liverpool players

Spot on

Have no problem with the principle of VAR, but do with the way it is being used.

3 main problems for me: -

1) the decisions are being amended by people totally remote from the game, undermining the onfield Ref (whether good or bad) & with freeze frame when football is not played in that way & the technology is not accurate enough to decide whether someone is offside by millimetres anyway.

2) The onfield Ref should be advised that he needs to check when a goal is scored & he should rewatch it on the pitchside monitor (otherwise why bother having them) in real time as thats how the game is played. Unless he can see that he has made a clear & obvious error then his original decision should stand. In yesterdays game then the Mane goal would have been given as Lallana didn't handle it & Van Dijk's was not clear at all. Neto's goal would have stood as well. Would the result have stayed there - not with any certainty as the rest of the game would have played out differently.

3) If VAR is being used then there needs to be far better communication of why inside the stadium - a lot of the aggro comes from the fact that often no one in the crowd knows what the hell they are looking at.

We can fiddle about with the rules, but there will always be marginal decisions wherever the line is drawn. Leave decisions to the onfield Ref (as said whether they are good or bad the decisions are likely to be consistent for that game) & watch in real time. If its clear & obvious then overturn, but not otherwise.

There will still be arguments in the pub after but football has always had those.

Also spot on.

VAR was thought to “stop the debate/ arguments”. It’s creating more and ruining the game at the same time. Although I’d say it’s mainly the offside decision which are doing this. I don’t have to agree with the Mahrez decision but I can accept it. I can’t accept the Jonny offside.

 

[Rui_CostCo]

No idea what they do now, but in NFL refs used to be able to do a pitchside review, restricted to the view on tv at the time of the potential infringement. If that wasnt conclusive eirher way they ran with the on pitch decision.

 

[sycophantia]

It's on the Premier Lesgue website.

The cameras are 50fps. They choose the first frame where the ball comes into contact with the passer's foot. Not when it leaves it.

So that should be pretty consistent given that level. Still can be abused though if they happen to go and extra frame or two further forward "by mistake".

Should it not be the frame when the ball leaves the passers foot rather than when it contacts the foot? very small differences I know but thats what they're measuring

 

[BillyDee]

No, it's when it first contacts the foot to initiate the pass.

 

[BillyDee]

 

[Rui_CostCo]

A lot could be achieved by letting the world inside Stockley Park, and let Attwell and the video assistants explain what their remit is, what they have to do as part of tgeir job, what rules they work to and what they have no choice but to review, their whole process and what difficulties theyre having causing such long delays. If the answer to the last part is ' well, we have to do it, its our instructions, but its just so hard to tell sometimes' then I'm sure what you do

 

[SSB]

A lot could be achieved by letting the world inside Stockley Park

“When VAR goes wrong” coming soon to Channel 5.

 

[Walnut]

Football law makers IFAB as said that "Premier League should not be using VAR for marginal decisions. Clear and obvious still remains, its an important principle. There should not be a lot of time spent to find something marginal. If something is not clear from first sight, then its not obvious and shouldn't be considered. Looking at the camera is one thing but looking at 15 trying to find something that potentially not there, this was not the idea of the VAR principle . It should be clear and obvious".

 

[WarwickWolf]

I still don't understand why the rugby refs approach cannot be used. There's a two way dialogue between the ref and the video ref so that if the video ref spots something he mentions it to the ref and play continues until the next break in play. If the ref wants to have a look at an incident, he asks the video ref to sort it for him and it's all done on the big screen with mics turned on so everyone knows what's going on. It's really not difficult.