[Football] Right then. After that demonstration... VAR? Yes or No?

[Geoffish]

Interesting article today showing how VAR can’t be 100% accurate on tight offside calls. A player shown to be 2.4 cm offside and goal ruled out, when between frames he might have moved 14CM

Not really relevant to Burn as he was further offside and not moving as fast, but hopefully a reminder to anyone who thinks VAR decisions are infallible.

 

[Geoffish]

It is completely sanitised and not dramatic.

It’s like being told a joke then having to wait 2 minutes for someone else to tell you if it was funny or not before you laugh.

 

[mreprice]

Interesting article today showing how VAR can’t be 100% accurate on tight offside calls. A player shown to be 2.4 cm offside and goal ruled out, when between frames he might have moved 14CM

Not really relevant to Burn as he was further offside and not moving as fast, but hopefully a reminder to anyone who thinks VAR decisions are infallible.

View attachment 114416

Glad someone has finally pointed this out.

Plus on top of the gap between frames is the time the ball is in contact with the foot. Is the ball “played” when the player first makes contact the ball or when the ball leaves his foot? That is likely to be two or three frames.

 

[METALMICKY]

It said a lot about VAR but

It is absolutely f****** sh 1t.

Part of the beauty of football is the robberies and lucky / unlucky decisions. Why does it have to be perfect .

It’s ruined the unbridled joy when we score which can’t be a good thing .

I agree it adds the drama if watching at home but it’s killed a bit of the live enjoyment .

Yesterday the time it took was a shambles

VAR is shite

Perfectly summarised. It's lack of perfection is almost it's strength and why up fans are so entertained by it and discuss it so much.

 

[Is it PotG?]

Interesting article today showing how VAR can’t be 100% accurate on tight offside calls. A player shown to be 2.4 cm offside and goal ruled out, when between frames he might have moved 14CM

Not really relevant to Burn as he was further offside and not moving as fast, but hopefully a reminder to anyone who thinks VAR decisions are infallible.

Consistency, that's what fans and pundits have been asking for. Whatever the software/criteria/defintions, so long as each decision is measured the same way, then it works imho.

 

[Lever]

Hopefully the decision-making will speed up and players will be less inclined to try and get away with cheating.
Now.... if they could just do something more about time wasting......

 

[Dick Swiveller]

Not reading the whole thread but getting fed up of pompous posters preaching about accurate decisions. That is not in doubt. For me, it has taken the soul out of attending a game whilst two people play CSI 70 miles away. The technology in cricket is well proven and yet they still go with umpire's call. I would go back to the old offside rule giving the striker the benefit and give VAR one real time replay. If they don't see a clear and obvious error then allow it. No freeze frames with MS Paint. No trying to cue up the exact frame the ball is passed.

I would actually go further and let just the on field officials refer a goal - maybe with a cricket style soft signal. If the linesman is unsure then they refer it with an according signal as in cricket so the crowd know what is going on. The drive for 100% accurate decisions is killing the experience for me. We want rid of the Shyster style shockers. Not a decision that takes 2 minutes to make.

 

[SUA Seagull]

Driving back home yesterday evening I listened to Talksh*te coverage of City vs Spurs. The commentators and studio pundits were falling over themselves to “will” City on to a win. I can’t recall having heard such a biased commentary in quite a while, but during the post-match phone-in City and Spurs fans alike said that the VAR decision was brutal. Looking at the replay, Laporte clearly goes to head the ball, misses it, it scuffs his hand and falls to Jesus who scores. No handball intent there at all, and so it’s the law itself that’s wrong; VAR simply confirmed the incident. MOTD was equally critical of the decision.

When Trossard initially “scored” I went crazy; a home debut goal at a crucial moment in the match which would have given the Albion an early fillip. Two minutes later, the balled teed up for a West Ham restart, the goal was chalked off. As far as I could see the lino didn’t flag Burn’s offside at the time of the incident and none of the West Ham players contested the goal. Exactly the same was true of Spurs’ players at City.

I know the whole point of VAR is to ensure that the correct decision is reached (and, in fairness to the officials, all 20 PL clubs voted for its introduction) but surely as part of the “clear and obvious” judgement, if not one of the 22 players challenges an incident then they’re happy with it and the game should move on? At this rate, VAR will render linos redundant.

I agree with an earlier poster that it must surely affect the players’ psychology, with the defending team on a high having “gotten away with one” when the decision’s in their favour, with the celebrants equally deflated at having been denied a “goal”.

Technology applied sensibly, such as goal-line reviews and VAR’s use for “clear and obvious” infringements, is the way the PL clubs have decided to go, so as fans we have to accept that. Over time, hopefully the laws will be clarified and officials will become more familiar with the VAR process and make quicker decisions.

I also appreciate that there will be occasions on which the Albion benefit from VAR. But, as a fan, a little bit of football died for me yesterday, knowing that my usual bonkers celebration of an Albion goal will now have to be put on hold until “Goal” appears on a screen. Ghastly. Whether or not you’re in the pro- or anti-VAR camp, it has inevitably detracted from the spontaneity of the game, fans' post-match talking points and, in terms of my own enjoyment (personal opinions and all that), is a step backwards.

 

[SollysLeftFoot]

Yes, but there needs to be a time limit in how long after the situation it can be used. IIRC, a whole minute went past before the ref decided to take a look.

The right decision, just poorly timed.

 

[BensGrandad]

Yes, but there needs to be a time limit in how long after the situation it can be used. IIRC, a whole minute went past before the ref decided to take a look.

The right decision, just poorly timed.

I asked in another post what is the time schedule and passage of play whereupon a VAR verdict can have an influence but nobody answered or gave an opinion.

 

[Acker79]

I asked in another post what is the time schedule and passage of play whereupon a VAR verdict can have an influence but nobody answered or gave an opinion.

I'm pretty sure I've mentioned several times about the 'resetting' of play. It's not about how time, it's about what happens on the pitch, And as I've just put this in another thread, I'll just copy it here (some of this is relevant to that thread):

https://www.skysports.com/football/news/11661/11777969/var-in-the-premier-league-the-ultimate-qa

I'm a bit rusty, so remind me: what will VAR check?

"Clear and obvious errors" or "serious missed incidents" in four match-changing situations:

- Goals
- Penalties
- Direct red cards
- Mistaken identity

VAR will automatically check these situations, often in the background while play is resuming. The final decision will be with the on-field referee, however.

There are no exceptions to these four areas; you won't see any checks for corners, throw-ins, yellow cards or even second yellow cards. If the incident doesn't fall under those four points, it will not be reviewed.​

and further down the page:

What about those dreaded 'phases of play'?

Many decisions will depend on which phase of play the incident occurred in. For instance, a foul or offside can only be reviewed if it occurred in the phase that directly led to a goal.

However, football is an extremely fluid game, so identifying a phase is a subjective exercise.

Factors to consider when the referee or VAR defines a phase of play, and whether a phase has been reset, include:

- When the team gain possession
- Whether there are multiple phases and which is the most immediate
- The ability of the defence to reset
- Whether the defence gain possession at all

Each example is likely to differ from one another, so this will be an unavoidable area of contention, but one that the Premier League VARs are well-trained on.​

 

[Gazwag]

Agree mostly, but doubt in who's mind? Yesterday Burn was clearly offside. Plenty of reason for doubt there. Just because the lino (and every one else) missed it - surely this is absolutely makes the case for VAR for those that wanted it. The fact that it kills the game completely and renders the whole thing a series of cold clinical decisions is a just what we now have to put up with. We can't have it both ways - either accept VAR for what it is or get rid.

The image on MOTD was taken after the ball had been kicked, if that was the image used to rule out the goal then it proved the technology isn't good enough yet.

 

[SollysLeftFoot]

I asked in another post what is the time schedule and passage of play whereupon a VAR verdict can have an influence but nobody answered or gave an opinion.

It’s a valid question, BG and one that I think needs clarification. The decision was correct, that’s not my beef. Beef lies with the delay.

 

[Dick Swiveller]

It’s a valid question, BG and one that I think needs clarification. The decision was correct, that’s not my beef. Beef lies with the delay.

It has been clarified above. There is no time limit on VAR making a decision. There are subjective rules on how far back they will check for an infringement after a goal.

 

[SollysLeftFoot]

It has been clarified above. There is no time limit on VAR making a decision. There are subjective rules on how far back they will check for an infringement after a goal.

Subjectivity...clarification...subjectivity...clarification...

 

[Dick Swiveller]

Subjectivity...clarification...subjectivity...clarification...

You will be waiting a very long time if you want it clarified for every single decision in one document. The length of time they take to make a decision does not have a limit. But the officials will decide what constitutes a phase of play as to how far back they check. Therefore, it is subjective.

 

[jessiejames]

It has been clarified above. There is no time limit on VAR making a decision. There are subjective rules on how far back they will check for an infringement after a goal.

So if there was 5 phases of play between the free kick being taken and the goal scored are all 5 phases checked.? If not and the goal was allowed that makes a mockery of VAR, due to the fact that Burn was offside.

The disallowed goal was neither
"Clear and obvious errors" or "serious missed incidents"

VAR will automatically check these situations, often in the background while play is resuming. The final decision will be with the on-field referee, however. Would have been funny to see West Ham kick off, score and play brought back for a free kick due to an incident that happened 5 minutes previously.

 

[Dick Swiveller]

So if there was 5 phases of play between the free kick being taken and the goal scored are all 5 phases checked.? If not and the goal was allowed that makes a mockery of VAR, due to the fact that Burn was offside.

The disallowed goal was neither
"Clear and obvious errors" or "serious missed incidents"

VAR will automatically check these situations, often in the background while play is resuming. The final decision will be with the on-field referee, however. Would have been funny to see West Ham kick off, score and play brought back for a free kick due to an incident that happened 5 minutes previously.

Only the phase that led to the goal will be checked. What counts as the last phase is the dark arts. There are a number of restarts before a decision cannot be reversed and I believe that after a goal, it is the kick off.

I think the background checking is what is confusing people. They are not telling the ref he has missed a foul or the ball has gone out of play. They are checking for one of the only 4 incidents they can get involved in so they can stop the game for a check.

 

[Dumseagull]

If you take 10-20% of the goals out of the premier league it will de value it as a brand, VAR has the potential to do this.

Surely for the sake of the passion lost not wanting to celebrate a goal anymore, they just need to widen the margins? And/or give the attacking team the advantage on marginal calls.

These are humans running around a pitch, people analysing there movements to this much detail is constantly going to show up tiny errors. It needs to be a CLEAR misjustice or Ref error before VAR steps in


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Dick Swiveller]

If you take 10-20% of the goals out of the premier league it will de value it as a brand, VAR has the potential to do this.

Haven't seen it yet but I guess it will make up for the in extra penalties.