VAR - it's not just us!

[dylanisabaddog 4,921]

From Italy. Probably the worst I've seen so far 

 

[hogesar 9,673]

Farcical.

[canarybubbles 1,915]

10 minutes ago, hogesar said:

Farcical.

This is probably the only thing you and I agree on, Hogesar.

[Wacky Waving Inflatable Arm Flailing Tube Man 3,820]

It wasn't actually the fault of the VAR though, because he wasn't given a camera angle wide enough to catch Candreva in it. He can only judge based on the images available to him.

So this time, it wasn't the fault of the on-field officials, nor the VAR, but I suppose it would be the TV director? Whoever it was, they made a mess of it, but it was great to watch live and it's funny when it happens to Juventus.

[Greavsy 2,415]

Don't var have their own cameras? 

[Pyro Pete 1,897]

I thought VAR had access to all the broadcast cameras. Why was the wideshot omitted?

[Nexus_Canary 1,016]

Surely it's up to the ref to then just over ride var.

[AJ 1,221]

1 hour ago, Pyro Pete said:

I thought VAR had access to all the broadcast cameras. Why was the wideshot omitted?

I assume they didn't realise anyone was out there and completely missed it

[Ian 1,129]

1 hour ago, Wacky Waving Inflatable Arm Flailing Tube Man said:

It wasn't actually the fault of the VAR though, because he wasn't given a camera angle wide enough to catch Candreva in it. He can only judge based on the images available to him.

So this time, it wasn't the fault of the on-field officials, nor the VAR, but I suppose it would be the TV director? Whoever it was, they made a mess of it, but it was great to watch live and it's funny when it happens to Juventus.

So basically VAR is not fit for purpose then?

This is no different to VAR making decisions based on millimetres offside when the technology available doesn't even facilitate that level of accuracy.

Edited September 19, 2022 by Ian

[Greavsy 2,415]

59 minutes ago, Nexus_Canary said:

Surely it's up to the ref to then just over ride var.

No point having it once they do that.... 

[Wacky Waving Inflatable Arm Flailing Tube Man 3,820]

10 minutes ago, Ian said:

So basically VAR is not fit for purpose then?

This is no different to VAR making decisions based on millimetres offside when the technology available doesn't even facilitate that level of accuracy.

I supposed it's like any technological system: it's only as good as the humans that program or operate it. 

[Ian 1,129]

13 minutes ago, Wacky Waving Inflatable Arm Flailing Tube Man said:

I supposed it's like any technological system: it's only as good as the humans that program or operate it. 

Which is why (other than in times of technical failure) technologies like goal-line sensors which give a yes/no answer are the only thing that really "works" in football.

That said, if the remit was "clear and obvious" errors only, I don't think anybody would have a complaint about VAR. Those sort of decisions wouldn't require the frame rate and resolution VAR doesn't yet seem to offer and wouldn't interfere with the flow of the game.

Expect a very slow U-turn away from VAR's current implementation from the UK footballing authorities which will surely be spun as a success.

 

[Wacky Waving Inflatable Arm Flailing Tube Man 3,820]

28 minutes ago, Ian said:

Which is why (other than in times of technical failure) technologies like goal-line sensors which give a yes/no answer are the only thing that really "works" in football.

That said, if the remit was "clear and obvious" errors only, I don't think anybody would have a complaint about VAR. Those sort of decisions wouldn't require the frame rate and resolution VAR doesn't yet seem to offer and wouldn't interfere with the flow of the game.

Expect a very slow U-turn away from VAR's current implementation from the UK footballing authorities which will surely be spun as a success.

I couldn't agree more. With the exception of offsides (and even that's debatable due to the frame-rate issue you mention) and whether the ball crossed the line, the decisions that technology can rule on in football are subjective. This is why VAR can never be perfect, despite so many people seemingly expecting perfection or calling for no VAR at all.

I think we do need VAR. I remember seeing a video on YouTube a few months back which showed the worst refereeing decisions in Premier League history, and that showed why we need VAR because some of them were ridiculous. The problem is that, despite the directive being that VAR is for clear and obvious errors only, it interferes in decisions which are still quite debatable, and sometimes arrive at a decision which the majority disagree with. That's the problem with VAR.

[Petriix 2,835]

Offside could easily be measured in real-time by a computer tracking all the players. Introducing low resolution visual cameras into the equation only muddies the outcome. There should still be a tolerance of at least 10cm in favour of the attacker to avoid those millimetre decisions, but it shouldn't be someone drawing lines on the screen.

[TheGunnShow 5,940]

Technology is wonderful when it works properly. And it's a c-raptastic pain in the p-oop chute when it doesn't.

[Ian 1,129]

5 minutes ago, Petriix said:

Offside could easily be measured in real-time by a computer tracking all the players.

I'm not convinced; it would need to be able to track all the limbs as well as general position. Not sure that technology, even if it exists, is going to be feasible to implement in a football match.

[Yellow Wal 314]

Well by the sound of it you could save a fortune on Assistant Referees fees as they will then become redundant.

[SwearyCanary 1,179]

2 minutes ago, Ian said:

I'm not convinced; it would need to be able to track all the limbs as well as general position. Not sure that technology, even if it exists, is going to be feasible to implement in a football match.

Don’t track all the limbs then. Track one common limb for all and this becomes the constant. 

[SwearyCanary 1,179]

Just now, Yellow Wal said:

Well by the sound of it you could save a fortune on Assistant Referees fees as they will then become redundant.

They basically are. They don’t even flag for a throw til the ref lifts his arm 

[Ian 1,129]

5 minutes ago, TheGunnShow said:

Technology is wonderful when it works properly. And it's a c-raptastic pain in the p-oop chute when it doesn't.

To be fair, VAR inadequacies are more down to the total lack of understanding by those who have implemented it in this country as opposed to the technology itself.

Makes you wonder how such an affluent industry can end up with such a **** show of an implementation.

Likely those at the top of the tree wanted "the best" implementation regardless of technical limitations - a familiar story in my industry.

You would have though that when the powers that be realised people in a small room were spending minutes drawing interpolated lines on low-resolution imagery that can't even determine the exact frame a ball leaves a player's boot, somebody might have raised a red flag and considered the damage this does to those in the stadium.

Apparently not.

[Ian 1,129]

2 minutes ago, SwearyCanary said:

Don’t track all the limbs then. Track one common limb for all and this becomes the constant. 

Left foot, right foot? Knee? Shoulder? Forehead? Some other appendage?

[Wacky Waving Inflatable Arm Flailing Tube Man 3,820]

28 minutes ago, Petriix said:

Offside could easily be measured in real-time by a computer tracking all the players. Introducing low resolution visual cameras into the equation only muddies the outcome. There should still be a tolerance of at least 10cm in favour of the attacker to avoid those millimetre decisions, but it shouldn't be someone drawing lines on the screen.

 

21 minutes ago, Ian said:

I'm not convinced; it would need to be able to track all the limbs as well as general position. Not sure that technology, even if it exists, is going to be feasible to implement in a football match.

It is already, and is being used in this season's Champions League:

https://www.espn.co.uk/football/uefa-champions-league/story/4736191/champions-league-welcomes-semi-automated-var-offsidebut-whats-it-all-about

[Ian 1,129]

Perhaps I misunderstand, but I don't think that's tracking technology, rather algorithms looking at similar images to a human to make a quicker decision.

That said, it's likely to give far better results than somebody manually drawing a fake line across a screen.

[hogesar 9,673]

It's still VAR's fault though, right? They should be asking for a camera that shows the entirety of the line / area of play. To not do that is pathetic in itself. "Oh, I have this zoomed in view of a football pitch. Couldn't possibly be anything happening elsewhere!"

[shefcanary 2,408]

They all wear these tracking bra's now (heat maps are produced from the data from these bra's), so put an RFID in the same place on every player's bra and use that as basis for offside decisions.

Edited September 20, 2022 by shefcanary

[The Great Mass Debater 1,090]

Understandable how that oversight can happen, but Juve were right and noone listened. Id be incensed too

[Google Bot 3,277]

Clear and obvious error.... VAR, that is.

[SwearyCanary 1,179]

21 hours ago, Ian said:

Left foot, right foot? Knee? Shoulder? Forehead? Some other appendage?

Head would be fine, at least it’s then a constant measure 

[Google Bot 3,277]

1 hour ago, SwearyCanary said:

Head would be fine, at least it’s then a constant measure 

I think the lines should be drawn from the rear-side.  I.e. from your standing foot, not leading (like the red dot here):

You see so many offsides given for attacking players who are timing their runs perfectly.  Players are getting punished for what is part of the beautiful game, everyone playing off the shoulder learns to plant their feet on-side and then time the run from that position, so the rules should reflect that.

The way you run, how short you are, there's so many factors that come in to play with how it's judged currently.  If you have a lower centre of gravity you will naturally find yourself off-side even with feet planted in line (as above).

Comparing what I'd call "anchor points" would be a much fairer way of assessing if a true advantage had been gained.... Because at the end of the day, that's what should be punished here - I think we've completely lost track of why an offside rule exists and get caught up on semantics with how it's administered rather than taking a common sense approach.

[Ian 1,129]

16 hours ago, SwearyCanary said:

Head would be fine, at least it’s then a constant measure 

A player could have their leg extended well beyond their head.