Jump to content
Note to existing users - password reset is required Read more... ×
Sign in to follow this  
Indy

VAR not being used correctly

Recommended Posts

After having seen highlights, that first penalty certainly wasn’t and it was reviewed yet as it was decided not to overturn a wrong decision! Yet a very marginal offside can be overturned!

Surely if there’s no contact but the attacker falls into the defender it’s not a foul and should have been overturned, though I’m all for VAR it has to be used correctly, but starting to think it’s just used for offside only!

Edited by Indy
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

VAR has failed to overturn more blindingly obvious errors than the penalty incident yesterday. I knew there was no chance of it being overturned the second Moss gave it.

VAR fast becoming a waste of time and ruining the in-stadium experience.

Either use the technology correctly which means admitting on field referees make mistakes, or get rid.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Fiery Zac said:

VAR has failed to overturn more blindingly obvious errors than the penalty incident yesterday. I knew there was no chance of it being overturned the second Moss gave it.

VAR fast becoming a waste of time and ruining the in-stadium experience.

Either use the technology correctly which means admitting on field referees make mistakes, or get rid.

I have to agree, after being a supporter of it, it is used totally ineffectively and dulls the game.

Don’t get me wrong Amadou shouldn’t have dived in like that, but there’s just no contact.

Edited by Indy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I too was in favour of bringing it in, after all, the technology’s there so why isn’t it being used to get the correct decisions and ultimately, result.

What I didn’t expect however is for the footballing authorities to get it so bo**** achingly wrong in the implementation. It’s like they’re not even trying to learn from mistakes either. Someone needs to talk to us, tell us how they got things wrong and how it will improve. STOP trusting one man running around like a headless chicken to get every decision right and use the technology to HELP THEM. The frustrating thing is, it could work, it could be used to get the right results in games and cut out errors but they’re all so scared of admitting that humans can make mistakes. How clear and obvious an error does it need to be for a decision to be overturned? An accidental beheading that was waved play on originally? A defender catches the ball, throws it over the crossbar and the ref gives a corner.....?

Aargh

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

At the end of the day, VAR or no VAR, final decisions are made by human beings who will, by their very nature, have differeing opinions on any decision that is not 100% clear cut. And even then there is usually room for conjecture.

All VAR has done is increased the number of people making the decisions without increasing the accuracy of those decisions.

On top of that we now have linesmen who are reluctant to put the flag up in fear of getting it wrong.

This is because they know that whatever decision they would have made will be looked at by somebody else who will make the decision for them.

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Fiery Zac said:

I too was in favour of bringing it in, after all, the technology’s there so why isn’t it being used to get the correct decisions and ultimately, result.

What I didn’t expect however is for the footballing authorities to get it so bo**** achingly wrong in the implementation. It’s like they’re not even trying to learn from mistakes either. Someone needs to talk to us, tell us how they got things wrong and how it will improve. STOP trusting one man running around like a headless chicken to get every decision right and use the technology to HELP THEM. The frustrating thing is, it could work, it could be used to get the right results in games and cut out errors but they’re all so scared of admitting that humans can make mistakes. How clear and obvious an error does it need to be for a decision to be overturned? An accidental beheading that was waved play on originally? A defender catches the ball, throws it over the crossbar and the ref gives a corner.....?

Aargh

VAR is exposing some flaws in the laws of the game, particularly offside. The amount of goals being ruled out for a player having their foot 6 inches the wrong side of the defender is getting ludicrous and not the reason the offside law was brought in in the first place.

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, king canary said:

I thought it was a penalty- which means VAR is probably right not to overturn as it didn't seem 'clear and obviously' wrong.

Kingo at first glance I’d agree but when you watch it back he’s not made contact, surely with such consequences by awarding a penalty it must be a clear penalty not just an opinion of an on field ref which can only be overturned with a clear mistake, we’ll in my opinion it was a mistake.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

VAR is a complete waste of fecking time and is making football less enjoyable.

Linesmen arent waiting for play to develop on marginal offside, they're still throwing their flag up on repeatedly incorrect occasions, so it's not helping with that. Then VAR isnt overruling 'clear and obvious ' errors, but it is, because its overruling the most marginal of offsides.

Its inconsistent, it's been implemented awfully and it pisses me off.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I didn't see the game but we had a handball penalty shout, and I think Freezer said it went to VAR but was turned down because the ball was blasted at the defender at close range. I may be confused, but I didn't think that was a relevant criterion.

What mattered was whether an unnaturally positioned arm stopped the ball going where it was intended to go, irrespective of  how close or otherwise. Of course the arm in this case may have been naturally positioned.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The new rule concerning handball differs for a defender and an attacker. If the ball touches an attackers hand, accidentally or not, in the process of a goal being scored then that is handball. The handball rule for defenders is unchanged and can still be considered as accidental.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes hairy, but not in this case.  It doesn't matter whether a defender's handball was accidental or not if:

  • The ball touches a player’s hand/arm which has made their body unnaturally bigger OR
  • The ball touches a player’s hand/arm when it is above their shoulder (unless the player has deliberately played the ball which then touches their hand/arm)

which was the case here.

But I'm not sure if it hit the player's arm or not - I thought it did at the time, but the incident doesn't seem to be in any highlights.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We debated this at the time on the match thread. The majority thought after reviewing that it wasn't a penalty. a couple did.

The criteria seems completely wrong to me. No matter what the referees decision is, even if it is a shaky decision, surely the benefit of the doubt has to be with the tackler.

VAR  was brought in to help get controversial decisions right. But not just in the case of giving them, but to stop the referee, who sees something at normal speed from one angle, giving a penalty when he shouldn't have.

Pundits are forever talking about initial contact and VAR showed there was little if any by Amadou and more likely the other way round. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have to agree VAR was there to help the ref on field team, now it’s just used to justify their decisions! It’s so wrong and I’m now anti VAR the way it’s being used! 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I didn't want it to be a pen but felt it was,  Amadou made no contact with the ball but there was contact (albeit minimal) with the player, a mistimed tackle in the penalty area is a pen, much as Leroy fer v Man u, the defending player in this position must stand ,shield and block, not dive in with a tackle. I can guarantee that somewhere on a football pitch in England at this very minute, a coach is screaming ' stand him, stand him, don't dive in'. Players don't always listen.  As always with pens against us I ask myself " would I feel different if the situation was at the other end?". In this case, if it was us, I'd be screaming for a pen and feel robbed if it wasn't given. VAR just made it clear that Amadou did not get to the ball, therefore unfortunately,a foul.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For me, the penalty yesterday probably stays with the on-field ref’s decision. If he hadn’t given it, it wasn’t a clear and obvious penalty. When he did give it though, I don’t think you can say it’s a clear and obvious error by the ref. 

The issue I have with the offside shouts is that when it comes down to millimetres, the technology can’t be one hundred per cent accurate - can we confirm the exact millisecond the ball was played and confirm the exact position of the attacker/defender at that exact millisecond? If the answer is “no” or “not quite” then there needs to be a margin for error - perhaps something like the player needs to be at least 10cm offside before VAR can be relied on. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, El Convento said:

Yes hairy, but not in this case.  It doesn't matter whether a defender's handball was accidental or not if:

  • The ball touches a player’s hand/arm which has made their body unnaturally bigger OR
  • The ball touches a player’s hand/arm when it is above their shoulder (unless the player has deliberately played the ball which then touches their hand/arm)

which was the case here.

But I'm not sure if it hit the player's arm or not - I thought it did at the time, but the incident doesn't seem to be in any highlights.

Thanks. That was my understanding. As I said, I haven't seen the incident, but Freezer's explanation as to why it wasn't a penalty was not that it hadn't hit the arm, but that it was at very close range. If it was in some unnatural position - again I don't know - then it sounds as if it should have been a pen.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

VAR just made it clear that Amadou did not get to the ball, therefore unfortunately,a foul.

I'm not sure that is right Corkie. I think VAR showed that is wasn't clear. All the VAR official did was back the refs decision. I fear this will happen time after time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, king canary said:

VAR is exposing some flaws in the laws of the game, particularly offside. The amount of goals being ruled out for a player having their foot 6 inches the wrong side of the defender is getting ludicrous and not the reason the offside law was brought in in the first place.

Also, as they're looking at 50 FPS video, the level of technology isn't actually there to support these marginal decisions anyway. You only have to look at how crap the resolution is, and the distance the ball travels between a single frame, to realise that VAR is not really fit for purpose for the marginal offside application. 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, keelansgrandad said:

VAR just made it clear that Amadou did not get to the ball, therefore unfortunately,a foul.

I'm not sure that is right Corkie. I think VAR showed that is wasn't clear. All the VAR official did was back the refs decision. I fear this will happen time after time.

You are not wrong and neither am I. Maybe I didn't make it clear what I meant, if a player makes that kind of challenge in the box and makes no contact with the ball, then they are risking the attacking player to move on to the outstretched leg and go over, giving the ref a decision to make. How many fouls did Grant Holt 'buy' in and around the box? we loved him for his cute play. If that tackle by Amadou was on the halfway line we wouldn't complain at a free kick being given. I feel it was neither 100% a pen, nor a clear and obvious error.

I believe that the defender gets the benefit of doubt in handball situations, the attacker receives the same benefit of doubt in a rash tackle situation. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Amadou not much skilful in this challenge but this is for sure dive with back of the net  for Palace player !

VAR work different in UK and this penalty no chance to be re think because no obvious mistake etc bull...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For years referees have debated angles. Seeing the same incident but from other angles has long been something referees have wanted the facility to do. Linesmen for years have been given a piece meal role of “assisting” referees by seeing an incident from their view point . Ths doesn’t work in practice as the primary role of a lines man is to review the ball leaving the field of play , and offside. That in inself is nuts as you are asking for 90 degree vision 

 

So along comes VAR. at first it is described as fussy . Why? It took too long for decisions to be made. Why? Because refs were  “advised” to go and have another look on a screen. The inference of course was that the infield ref had got it wrong . In most cases they had and the VAR   decisions were correct by using , guess what, 3 or 4 different angles.

Now we have a complete sham. Primarily refs must not be made to look silly . So the original decision , from their one angle, is now rarely overturned. This will change in time , as it doesn’t do what it was supposed to do and that is reach the correct decision.

Refs don’t want to use VAR but they will be forced to eventually. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Aggy said:

The issue I have with the offside shouts is that when it comes down to millimetres, the technology can’t be one hundred per cent accurate - can we confirm the exact millisecond the ball was played and confirm the exact position of the attacker/defender at that exact millisecond? If the answer is “no” or “not quite” then there needs to be a margin for error - perhaps something like the player needs to be at least 10cm offside before VAR can be relied on. 

I agree with this - the difference between VAR with offsides, and goal line technology, is that for the latter there are sensors / cameras set up in correct alignment with the goal, so very little margin of error in the measurement / analysis for a simple question "did the entire ball cross the goal line" 

With both match officials and VAR review of offsides, you have to understand when the ball was passed, and where the defender and attackers are - all from TV cameras that are not parallel with the last defender and only capture 50 images per second. As Jamie Vardy has been measured burst running at 35Km/hour = 9.72 meters per sec =  382 inch per sec that equates to almost 8 inches between each TV image. Then if the exposure time is about half the frame rate, that means light is captured for 1/100th sec, so there is motion blur equivalent to about half of that distance i.e. about 4 inches of that movement are blurred, the other 4 inches are not captured at all.

So, yes offside errors should be "clear and obvious" before goals are overruled by VAR. 

Edited by Surfer
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You are not wrong and neither am I. Maybe I didn't make it clear what I meant, if a player makes that kind of challenge in the box and makes no contact with the ball, then they are risking the attacking player to move on to the outstretched leg and go over, giving the ref a decision to make. How many fouls did Grant Holt 'buy' in and around the box? we loved him for his cute play. If that tackle by Amadou was on the halfway line we wouldn't complain at a free kick being given. I feel it was neither 100% a pen, nor a clear and obvious error.

I believe that the defender gets the benefit of doubt in handball situations, the attacker receives the same benefit of doubt in a rash tackle situation. 

I think  we can definitely agree the challenge probably wasn't the best decision at the time, he was going away from goal. But as a DM, Amadou probably instinctively tried to tackle.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Haven’t seen yesterday’s pen so can’t comment. 

I don’t follow the offside argument. Offside is offside . If we gave a margin of error - say 3 mm then everyone would argue about 3.5mm . The technology is used and agreed with in cricket and tennis.  Linear decisions are relatively easy. It’s no good saying well it was so close it shouldn’t be called . How close is close? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, Graham Paddons Beard said:

Haven’t seen yesterday’s pen so can’t comment. 

I don’t follow the offside argument. Offside is offside . If we gave a margin of error - say 3 mm then everyone would argue about 3.5mm . The technology is used and agreed with in cricket and tennis.  Linear decisions are relatively easy. It’s no good saying well it was so close it shouldn’t be called . How close is close? 

The point about offside is that it’s not just whether the attacker is in front or not. It’s also at the point when the other attacker passes the ball. In tennis it is literally just a line call. Cricket does have a “margin for error” mechanism built in, in that if only a certain amount of the ball is hitting the wickets from an lbw decision, they stay with the on-field umpire’s decision - so if he says not out, it’s not out regardless of the fact the tracker says a third of the ball might actually have been hitting. 

Surfer has, far more scientifically than I, explained why the system currently isn’t accurate enough to make the judgment call in the really tight decisions. Those ones where they draw a line from the arm pit downwards and the two lines are touching. Surfer’s post shows exactly why that’s too close to call.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×