I thought VAR was the answer to everything...

[First Wazzock 902]

Cracking job with the offside tonight.Looks like Derby were robbed.

[Capt. Pants 4,194]

Just about got it right but didn't stop misery guts Murphy and Shearer whinening on about it.

Surely it should be used in all cup ties or none at all.

[Feedthewolf 4,844]

7 minutes ago, Capt. Pants said:

Just about got it right but didn't stop misery guts Murphy and Shearer whinening on about it.

Surely it should be used in all cup ties or none at all.

Agree, I don't think it should be used in the FA Cup. Or maybe only in the semis/final when you know the games will be at grounds with the technology. If the game was being played at Pride Park the goal would have stood.

However, I do think the decision was correct tonight. If 'hawk eye' technology can accurately predict ball tracking in cricket to an acceptable margin, surely it should be able to show offside decisions to a similar degree of accuracy. Doesn't matter if it's 'marginal', you want the big decisions to be correct and the technology offers much less margin for error than human error does.

[Harry53 207]

Why did we need it tonight? Isn't that what linesmen are for? Is VAR going to examine every decision in the future? 

[Feedthewolf 4,844]

20 minutes ago, Harry53 said:

Why did we need it tonight? Isn't that what linesmen are for? Is VAR going to examine every decision in the future? 

Only decisions involving goals, penalties and red cards. Within a couple of years it'll be part and parcel of the game and nobody will be moaning about it. They just need to speed up how long it takes to make the decisions and communicate better with the fans, but that'll come with time.

[AJ 1,218]

Not sure why computers can't just examine the footage as give a result regarding offsides. Should be pretty straightforward and speed things up.  

Pens and red cards would need a human eye though but do indeed need to be way quicker. They should also only need to be used if the referee is unsure not in every single instance of the above incidents which is how it feels at the moment. 

[Molly Windley 76]

I have often wondered when exactly they deem that the ball is "struck" as in played forward to a player that is "offside"?

Is it when the the player makes contact with the ball to strike it or when it leaves the foot?

 

[SwindonCanary 455]

It's as the pass was made, which is impossible, for a linesman - he has to look at two places at once

[Molly Windley 76]

1 minute ago, SwindonCanary said:

It's as the pass was made, which is impossible, for a linesman - he has to look at two places at once

True, it`s  impossible for a linesman to look at two things at once so they have always guessed.

Is the pass deemed "made" as the players foot touches the ball or as it leaves it?

 

[SwindonCanary 455]

The rules say 'as the pass is made '

[Molly Windley 76]

1 minute ago, SwindonCanary said:

The rules say 'as the pass is made '

Yup, I had a look at the rules but no explanation of exactly when they deem a pass to be "made"

 

[keelansgrandad 6,679]

One went for Derby and one against IMO. And that is the problem. Just drawing a line doesn't take into account everything. I think it should be based on the trunk of the body as in athletics. So they would need to look from a ground level perspective. 

The Kane decision and last nights show how it will still be an opinion of the referee for offside.

Penalties are even worse decisions to make. I thought Southampton had a case for one last night. If it had happened to us I would have called very loudly for one. But the VAR chaps thought otherwise and they didn't even get the ref to have a look. Murphy commentating has in the past joined the "entitled to go down" school of thought. But last night thought otherwise.

And I think in a couple of years, not only will VAR be established, it will be causing as much controversy as ever.

[Chip20 69]

24 minutes ago, Molly Windley said:

Yup, I had a look at the rules but no explanation of exactly when they deem a pass to be "made"

Whoah!! How long do you reckon the ball is connected to the foot for? Enough time for somebody stood potentially 20-30 metres away to be able to discern the difference?

[Feedthewolf 4,844]

49 minutes ago, Chip20 said:

Whoah!! How long do you reckon the ball is connected to the foot for? Enough time for somebody stood potentially 20-30 metres away to be able to discern the difference?

The key factor here is whether it's enough time for somebody sat in a garden shed 100 miles away to be able to discern the difference... 😉

[Bill 1,788]

16 hours ago, Feedthewolf said:

Only decisions involving goals, penalties and red cards. Within a couple of years it'll be part and parcel of the game and nobody will be moaning about it. They just need to speed up how long it takes to make the decisions and communicate better with the fans, but that'll come with time.

No, it will be binned along with other idiot ideas like plastic pitches and 4 quarter to a game.

Off side is another rule that is currently subjective. Allowing this buffoonery to interrupt games may please adverisers and sponsors or those who want to watched staged guff like gridiron, but it has no place in a game like football.

[Molly Windley 76]

2 hours ago, Chip20 said:

Whoah!! How long do you reckon the ball is connected to the foot for? Enough time for somebody stood potentially 20-30 metres away to be able to discern the difference?

The time is minimal for a normally played pass and the human eye, but that could make all the difference when slow motion and VAR is used, especially if the defender and attacker are moving in opposite directions

When is the "pass made" when a scooped pass over the top is made?

[Feedthewolf 4,844]

4 hours ago, Bill said:

No, it will be binned along with other idiot ideas like plastic pitches and 4 quarter to a game.

Off side is another rule that is currently subjective. Allowing this buffoonery to interrupt games may please adverisers and sponsors or those who want to watched staged guff like gridiron, but it has no place in a game like football.

We'll see. The technology has improved pretty much every sport it's been used in, and once the implementation is sorted out it'll be fine. Rather the odd 15-second delay here and there than important games being decided by miscarriages of justice.

[Chip20 69]

4 hours ago, Molly Windley said:

The time is minimal for a normally played pass and the human eye, but that could make all the difference when slow motion and VAR is used, especially if the defender and attacker are moving in opposite directions

When is the "pass made" when a scooped pass over the top is made?

I would suggest the contact time for a 'normal' pass would still be too swift for a video replay to perceive, unless they are using a camera capturing hundreds of frames per second. For your lofted pass scenario logic would surely be to determine the pass is made at the time the ball departs the foot, as in theory the player could balance the ball for several seconds before 'releasing' it. You are probably right that the rules don't specify at that level of detail. 

[Aggy 747]

8 hours ago, keelansgrandad said:

Just drawing a line doesn't take into account everything. I think it should be based on the trunk of the body as in athletics. So they would need to look from a ground level perspective. 

The Kane decision and last nights show how it will still be an opinion of the referee for offside.

I’ve always thought the rule was that if any part of the body with which you can legally score (ie not your hand/arm) is beyond the last defender, it’s offside?

As for the point re VAR for offside decisions, it absolutely shouldn’t be used during the game if nothing comes of the chance. We don’t need every inconsequential decision to be reviewed.

However, in cricket if there’s a wicket, they review the bowler’s front foot to see if it’s a “no ball” as standard; you could have something like that - if there’s a goal, you’ve got a man in the studio who automatically checks for offside. You’d need specific rules - you only check for offside from the assist (ie; you can’t go back to a pass which happened fifty seconds ago).

VAR being implemented for things like penalties is tricky though. In rugby and cricket, there are clear phases to a game even in when in open play (each delivery in cricket, or each ruck/maul/breakdown in rugby). In football there aren’t clear phases like that. So, in cricket the technology has a limited amount of things and a limited timeframe it can be checking for - is it a front foot no ball, has it bounced before the fielder catches it, or Hawkeye for lbw.

In rugby, I believe they can ask the tv ref only two specific questions (“I think it’s a try, is there any reason I can’t give a try”, and “try or no try?”), there are clear rules which define what answers the tv ref can give and the tv ref can only go back and review two phases of play (I think). I think the tv ref can also comment if there has been a yellow or red card offence the on field ref hasn’t seen.

In football if a ref asked a tv official “is there any reason I can’t give a penalty?” how far do you go back? Do you check every forward pass since the ball last went out of play for an offside, do you check every ‘fair’ challenge since the last set piece to see if a foul was actually committed but missed, do you go back to the last set piece, or the last time the opposition touched the ball, do you focus only on the specific tackle/foul? 

If it is going to stay, there need to be rules somewhat similar to rugby. We need tv officials (not just on field refs watching replays), specific scenarios that can be referred to those tv refs and, ideally, specifically worded questions with specific answers and specific protocols for what the tv refs can and can’t review when coming up with those answers. 

For me, it’s too complicated to get right for penalty calls. Goal line technology works and works well. Something such as offside “spot checking” by a man in a studio on all goals scored could also potentially work. Anything else is all just a bit too difficult to get right.

[First Wazzock 902]

For me, it’s too complicated to get right for penalty calls. Goal line technology works and works well. Something such as offside “spot checking” by a man in a studio on all goals scored could also potentially work. Anything else is all just a bit too difficult to get right.

 

Spot on Aggy.

Penalties are down to one mans opinion. As for handball..don't get me started on that one. 

The rule states...'Handling the ball involves a deliberate act of a player making contact with the ball with the hand or arm.'  This is not true of the very vast majority of handball decisions.

[splendidrush 698]

I wonder if there will come a time where we dispense with referee's assistant's, have a track alongside the touchline with a camera that runs level with the last man, like the 100 metres. Sounds draft,I know, just putting it out there. 

[Hank shoots Skyler 2,094]

9 hours ago, Bill said:

No, it will be binned along with other idiot ideas like plastic pitches and 4 quarter to a game.

Off side is another rule that is currently subjective. Allowing this buffoonery to interrupt games may please adverisers and sponsors or those who want to watched staged guff like gridiron, but it has no place in a game like football.

I really don’t think it will be binned, at all. VAR is hugely important for the sport imo.

Do you ever consider how utterly bizarre it is that you can watch a game on TV, see there has been an unfairly scored goal 10 seconds after it goes in, yet the referee isn’t told or shown anything. This is ****ed up, we have the technology to aid referees in so many ways, the cameras show that in every single game we watch. Why can’t people see the benefits? 

There have been so many shocking decisions that have been catastrophic for teams on the receiving end. Every week on MOTD there’s multiple goals that should or shouldn’t have stood that can be EASILY deduced from watching replays. Why would we not utilise this? 

It’s as if **** refereeing decisions have become so ingrained into the game they’re completely overlooked and accepted!

Yes there has been plenty of issues with VAR so far:

- Extra long delays - 2 mins + for some decisions 

- Controversy over whether marginal decisions were correct or not 

But I don’t think they should be bogged down on too much at all, with more implementation we’ll see both of these drawbacks refined to an acceptable level. 

Just imagine VAR with Maradona’s hand of god, imagine VAR when Henry handled against Ireland, imagine goal line technology in the 1966 final when Geoff Hu-... okay not that one.

To me, it’s not the really close call decisions where we will see value in VAR - it’s the blatant game-changing refereeing errors that need to be swept up. People also seem to be expecting 100% success rate which is unrealistic, particularly with penalty decisions where instances can split opinion 50/50 - and I can see why this would **** people off. The issues being where it takes a minute or two to decide and then half the people watching believe they’ve overturned the initially correct decision in their opinion. 

However I think such issues can be resolved; i.e. a panel of 4 are watching replays, if 3 or more vote against the referee’s decision then it’s a 3:1 majority and overturned. With good communication this could easily be done in the same time as it takes one person to decide. This would mean only the clearer errors overruled.

I also think we may see computers utilised to make offsides 100% accurate. Or better use of cameras, that Harry Kane offside decision was a joke the other night. Why the officials used such a poor perspective to make their decision I do not know. 

There is a clear divide on this one between those willing to accept the change and those not - unfortunately those against it don’t appear to be willing to give it a chance and be patient. It’ll have to come in time though because I think we’ll be seeing more of it.

 

[splendidrush 698]

I seem to remember that the FAI took a 6 mil backhander not to appeal the Henry decision (allegedly) Ever wondered why it's taken so long to push VAR through? The Big Clubs don't want it,  as things stand they get more than there share of decisions, retired players and referees have said as much. 

[Making Plans 936]

Despite all the technology, it still comes down to the refs opinion so nothing really changes.

They will still get it wrong as many times as they get it right.

 

[Bill 1,788]

5 hours ago, Hank shoots Skyler said:

There is a clear divide on this one between those willing to accept the change and those not - unfortunately those against it don’t appear to be willing to give it a chance and be patient. It’ll have to come in time though because I think we’ll be seeing more of it.

No. The clear divide is between those who understand the game and those who don't. The overwhelming number of decisons made by the referee are subjective. Much of offside is subjective, as are penalty decisions. I am not to sure who the referee is calling as claimed above.

VAR is not about introducing somekind of definite accuracy, but introducing breaks and 'talking points' into the game. If you have ever had the misfortune to watch Gridiron you will see there is little action but endless replays accompanied by mindless waffle and saddo stuff about 'stats' "Thta's the third time Hiriam J Cheeseburger has thrown the ball 20 yards in the third quarter in the last 4 games while his side is losing by more than four points ............zzzzzzzzzzzz"

As this buffooner requires others to study the replays them it merely re-affirms the point that it is subjective - and is only of an interest to those for whom watching the ebb and flow of the game is maybe a bit to complicated.

Television is there to record the game, not run it.

[Bill 1,788]

18 hours ago, keelansgrandad said:

One went for Derby and one against IMO. And that is the problem. Just drawing a line doesn't take into account everything. I think it should be based on the trunk of the body as in athletics. So they would need to look from a ground level perspective. 

The Kane decision and last nights show how it will still be an opinion of the referee for offside.

Penalties are even worse decisions to make. I thought Southampton had a case for one last night. If it had happened to us I would have called very loudly for one. But the VAR chaps thought otherwise and they didn't even get the ref to have a look. Murphy commentating has in the past joined the "entitled to go down" school of thought. But last night thought otherwise.

And I think in a couple of years, not only will VAR be established, it will be causing as much controversy as ever.

For a few 'eleite' games where the  advertising revenue is high and they can demand bteaks, but for the rest it is nothing more than a wwaste of time and money.

Even the numpties will finally grasp that games leke cricket and tennis are absolute when it cames to whether the ball is out of play, or not.

Those decisions are made when the game is 'apused' i between bowling and serving.

Perhaps one of the numpties could explain how a camera can show whether a player was or was not interfering with play in an offside decison.

Why one 'dirty' foul' generates a yellow card and the other doesn't.

At what stage in the game is action deemed time wasting and the other it is not.

[Aggy 747]

1 hour ago, Bill said:

For a few 'eleite' games where the  advertising revenue is high and they can demand bteaks, but for the rest it is nothing more than a wwaste of time and money.

Even the numpties will finally grasp that games leke cricket and tennis are absolute when it cames to whether the ball is out of play, or not.

Those decisions are made when the game is 'apused' i between bowling and serving.

Perhaps one of the numpties could explain how a camera can show whether a player was or was not interfering with play in an offside decison.

Why one 'dirty' foul' generates a yellow card and the other doesn't.

At what stage in the game is action deemed time wasting and the other it is not.

Interfering with play is a very good point. 

The “line technology” could be used to see if the player who touches the ball is in an offside position, but very true that technology can’t really tell you if a different player in an “offside position” is putting off the keeper or defender etc. 

Even in rugby, the calls are not really subjective - is the ball grounded over the try line or not? I don’t think (although could be wrong) that the video ref becomes involved in offside calls in rugby.

[Hank shoots Skyler 2,094]

Not sure how offsides are subjective?

I don't disagree with the issues raised. I just think the issues at the other end, without VAR, are much worse - Sterling kicked the ground and won a pen, Charlie Austin had a blatant goal wrongfully disallowed, THAT handball in the Nottingham Forest game FFS. I could not list them all out off the top of my head but they happen every week! It is surprising how often a refereeing blunder ends up costing a goal, it is absurd that a match official can have such an impact outcome of the game when they can easily be assisted with this technology. 

Again, these issues have become so ingrained into football's nature, it is the norm for offside / onside goals to be wrongly allowed / disallowed, it is the norm for blatant off the ball red card offences to be missed, it is the norm for a dive to be missed and a penalty to be wrongly given etc etc. These kind of issues are not subjective, and VAR will have no trouble in dealing with them.

Yes it is difficult to judge how the interfering with play element will work, and there are definite areas which will need refining, I imagine that things will be judged on a case-by-case basis - with plenty of common sense! I.e. Is the offside player in the goalkeeper's line of sight? Is the offside player affecting the defender's ability to defend? The interfering with play rule is already pretty controversial so it hardly highlights deficiencies in VAR merely the rule itself. Besides, VAR will be able to interpret these questions better than officials can live - without the benefit of replays - and even if the odd decision is still wrong, to me its still much better as I'm sick of the blatant BS.

[ricardo 7,328]

Eventually the computer will give us the result 5 minutes after kick off and instead of people leaving early we can all get up and go at the same time.

Either that or you can read my report before kick off and not bother to go if its a poor game.

[keelansgrandad 6,679]

Either that or you can read my report before kick off and not bother to go if its a poor game.

I did enjoy tonight's report. And I liked the bit where you had to push your bike because the snow was so heavy. You have had 94 billion hits on YouTube,

It sounds like Hank is frustrated about what has happened in the past. But I am particularly worried about the future. Goal line technology is perfect. Binary answer.  The rest is inconclusive in many cases which wouldn't be a problem except one referee's opinion after viewing will be different from another.

And people quote Rugby and Cricket as examples. But they are adjudged by another official in a booth. In football the referee is the final judge and he has to return to the field after the decision. And the crowd reaction in the other two sports is dramatically different to football.

And I also believe that managers and players and probably pundits will start to call for VAR to have wider parameters to include corners/goal kicks, foul play anywhere on the pitch.

The NFL review any touchdown. Yes do that in football unless it is obvious. Each coach gets two opportunities to review during the game. Yes, even football could handle that. But it isn't right to expect that VAR will solve the injustices. It is easy to say it will get rid of many. But how do you separate an injustice. It is either right or wrong. So if for arguments sake VAR gets it right but has no bearing on the result but when it does get it wrong it does have a bearing, where to next.