[Football] VAR today

[hoveboyslim]

Here you go - from the FA website on what to do in those situations.

View attachment 103586

Cheers. I’ve not seen that before. More often than not it’s both teams encroaching and it doesn’t answer that


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[rippleman]

What points have we gained this season due to no VAR? Isn’t it better to get the right result.

It isn’t perfect in cricket either. There is an even larger grey area where it is umpire’s call. Also replays for whether a ball carried are flawed. That said it means that far far more decisions are correct and the clangers are removed. To reject something because it is not perfect means we don’t get any improvements.

How many times was VAR used against Bournemouth? It is very very easy to add something about phase of play and how long you go back.

You have just listed very easily overcome issues.

I am calling bull on not renewing season ticket over it next year. Goodness me.

But in cricket VAR, the replays of what the third umpire is looking at are shown on tv / big screen. You have the "soft signal" from the on ground umpires. On tv you can hear the third umpire talking about what he is looking at and the reason for his decision.

In rugby you have the above but can also listen in to the discussion between on field ref and the tv ref, you get to see replays of the controversial incident and the explanation for the conclusion reached.

I think this just goes to show how far behind football is compared to other major sports in keeping the spectator informed.

 

[Berty23]

But in cricket VAR, the replays of what the third umpire is looking at are shown on tv / big screen. You have the "soft signal" from the on ground umpires. On tv you can hear the third umpire talking about what he is looking at and the reason for his decision.

In rugby you have the above but can also listen in to the discussion between on field ref and the tv ref, you get to see replays of the controversial incident and the explanation for the conclusion reached.

I think this just goes to show how far behind football is compared to other major sports in keeping the spectator informed.

I agree that football is behind and will hopefully catch up. At first Cricket wasn’t as transparent as it is now and is now much better than it was.

I might be wrong, but wasn’t there fears about showing replays inside the ground due to worries about crowd issues? I don’t see why it couldn’t be on the screens at the Amex. The issue comes with interpretation of the laws. I hate the offside law and whether someone is interfering with play. But that is an issue for the offside law not tech. For example in the Burnley match Vokes was clearly offside, and if we ignore that vydra was also a few inches offside, I would say that Vokes was interfering with play because the defenders might have pushed up to play him offside ie him being there changed how the opposition played. How could that be anything other than interfering?

 

[Bodian]

Retaken.

If it was scored, then the encroachment by the attacking player is primary (the defending player wouldn't be punished, because it was a goal anyway).
If it was not scored then the encroachment by the defender would be punished.

The purpose is that no team should benefit when an offence is being committed, so it is the team that would benefit from the score/not score outcome that would be looked at - the other team is irrelevant.

 

[Saunders]

I agree that football is behind and will hopefully catch up. At first Cricket wasn’t as transparent as it is now and is now much better than it was.

I might be wrong, but wasn’t there fears about showing replays inside the ground due to worries about crowd issues? I don’t see why it couldn’t be on the screens at the Amex. The issue comes with interpretation of the laws. I hate the offside law and whether someone is interfering with play. But that is an issue for the offside law not tech. For example in the Burnley match Vokes was clearly offside, and if we ignore that vydra was also a few inches offside, I would say that Vokes was interfering with play because the defenders might have pushed up to play him offside ie him being there changed how the opposition played. How could that be anything other than interfering?

This is such a stupid way of thinking for the FA because fans have access to this information on their phones. It is even likely they may get more annoyed because of incorrect assumptions about why a decision was made. If they use this technology they cant get away with trying to keep the fans in the stadium in the dark the sooner they realise this the better for all.

 

[Berty23]

Excellent use of VAR in the Cup semi today. An incorrect decision was corrected and it took 90 seconds.

 

[portslade seagull]

Got it right. Could add a few minutes in niggly games

 

[Acker79]

Excellent use of VAR in the Cup semi today. An incorrect decision was corrected and it took 90 seconds.

The analysts were going on about 90 seconds as if it's nothing. Brighton scored two goals v west ham, and west ham scored 2 goals against us, both pairs of goals officially are 2 minutes apart (56/58 and 66/68) but in actuality it might be closer than that (could be 56:59/58:01 or 56:01/58:59) after a brief search I can't find a report that gives minutes and seconds to see just how far away from the 96 seconds the review took. But in football terms, 90 seconds isn't an insignificant time. It's more than your average first half stoppage time, around half of your typical second half injury time. And this is one review. Two reviews, plus regular injury time and your 90 minute match is now looking at 100 minutes.

In fairness, the analysts also noted it is still relatively new/infrequently used in English football and it might get quicker with practice, but we shouldn't be commending 90 seconds as if it was fast.

 

[Berty23]

92 clubs enter the league cup it runs for over 6 months. There are moans about waiting 90 seconds to get the right decision. Odd

People worry about losing 90 seconds of the match but I think football should follow the lead of rugby and have an obvious stop start clock in the stadium. It would stop pointless substitutions if the clock stopped as soon as the board went up. I am forty this year and it is probably only about 15-20 years since rugby introduced this. At first people didn’t like it but imagine going back now.

 

[Acker79]

92 clubs enter the league cup it runs for over 6 months. There are moans about waiting 90 seconds to get the right decision. Odd

Lord of the Rings is a big book. I'll read a chapter or two, put it down, come back to it etc. I'd still be pissed off if I find someone has scribbled all over half of one page and I have to spend a bit more time trying to look through the scribbles and to work out what is underneath it even thought I'm committed to reading the whole thing, and that it will take me a while to read t all anyway.

And you make it sound a) like the cup competition is one big chunk of time, somehow not made up of individual matches that should be 90minutes long (two legs in the semis) b) there will only ever be one VAR decision in the whole competition c) VAR will only ever be used in this cup competition. All of which is nonsense, of course.

The issue with the 90 seconds isn't one decision in one match in competition. It's recognising that, in football, 90 seconds is not an insignificant amount of time. It's looking ahead to when every premier league match has VAR and there are 2, 3, 4 incidents in a game and these 90+ secs decisions start adding up.

 

[Berty23]

If you stop the clock then it is fine. The game will take a few minutes longer but I am a strong advocate that the right result is more important.

Imagine if Brighton get to the FA cup final. We are winning 1-0 with 40 seconds left and aguero scores and offside goal. Which option is better

1. 90 seconds checking the decision to check. Offside. Brighton won the cup.
2. Ref gives the goal. We lose on pens. We just get over it because we could t spare 90 seconds.

I can’t understand why in this day and age people are more worried about 90 seconds than a correct decision.

 

[Acker79]

If you stop the clock then it is fine. The game will take a few minutes longer but I am a strong advocate that the right result is more important.

Imagine if Brighton get to the FA cup final. We are winning 1-0 with 40 seconds left and aguero scores and offside goal. Which option is better

1. 90 seconds checking the decision to check. Offside. Brighton won the cup.
2. Ref gives the goal. We lose on pens. We just get over it because we could t spare 90 seconds.

I can’t understand why in this day and age people are more worried about 90 seconds than a correct decision.

What would you prefer

1. 90 seconds checking the decision to check. Offside. Brighton won the cup.
2. 5 seconds checking the decision to check. Offside. Brighton won the cup.

?

For me it isn't a question of 90+ second long replays or no VAR whatsoever. My point isn't 96 seconds is too long and they need to stop using VAR, my point is 96 secs is not an insignificant time in football and while being happy they got the right decision (ignoring Sarri's claim their footage shows Kane is offside), I think they could/should have made the decision faster. For me, 96 seconds is on the long end. The offside decision may need a few angles, maybe a bit of time for the computer to analyse the footage to accurately add the lines to the pitch, but the penalty decision was as clear cut as you can get, yet they still needed almost as much time as they gave the offside part of the decision. It's a question of how good is 90 seconds, and how much better can it/should it be? So I'm not going to complement them for the time taken. They got the right decision, that's great. Now do it quicker.

 

[Bodian]

If you stop the clock then it is fine. The game will take a few minutes longer but I am a strong advocate that the right result is more important.

Imagine if Brighton get to the FA cup final. We are winning 1-0 with 40 seconds left and aguero scores and offside goal. Which option is better

1. 90 seconds checking the decision to check. Offside. Brighton won the cup.
2. Ref gives the goal. We lose on pens. We just get over it because we could t spare 90 seconds.

I can’t understand why in this day and age people are more worried about 90 seconds than a correct decision.

Actually, your scenario 2 would end up taking at least 45 minutes more!! (extra time and penalties).

Also, I suppose it depends whether Aguero was playing for us by then.....

 

[Berty23]

I see Chelsea have an alternative angle. Interesting stuff. A few things still to iron out before it is fully used. Hopefully this will all be considered.

 

[pornomagboy]

if it it taking this long to make a right disision then surely it should be like rugby the clock should be stopped and also every time the ball goes out of play and play is stopped

Sent from my SM-G950F using Tapatalk

 

[Mr Bridger]

If you stop the clock then it is fine. The game will take a few minutes longer but I am a strong advocate that the right result is more important.

Imagine if Brighton get to the FA cup final. We are winning 1-0 with 40 seconds left and aguero scores and offside goal. Which option is better

1. 90 seconds checking the decision to check. Offside. Brighton won the cup.
2. Ref gives the goal. We lose on pens. We just get over it because we could t spare 90 seconds.

I can’t understand why in this day and age people are more worried about 90 seconds than a correct decision.

Got to leave early to get in the bus queue first

 

[Berty23]

Doesn’t the Chelsea angle suffer from the opposite issue to the original angle? I.e. the lean is not really taken into account on original angle but on the Chelsea angle it is over emphasised. Shouldn’t their be a line up to the top of his body from the Chelsea line?

It is all about angles and perspective. Surely technology must be available to have a real time computer simulation. This would be the same as a tennis Hawkeye. The event is happened. Give it a year or two and it will all be instantaneous (on the assumption they agree whobis and isn’t interfering)

 

[Curious Orange]

Hawkeye is already used on the goal line of course. Using it for offside is probably more problematic as there are no specific lines to aim the cameras at.

 

[Lower West Stander]

Doesn’t the Chelsea angle suffer from the opposite issue to the original angle? I.e. the lean is not really taken into account on original angle but on the Chelsea angle it is over emphasised. Shouldn’t their be a line up to the top of his body from the Chelsea line?

It is all about angles and perspective. Surely technology must be available to have a real time computer simulation. This would be the same as a tennis Hawkeye. The event is happened. Give it a year or two and it will all be instantaneous (on the assumption they agree whobis and isn’t interfering)

Come on.

The “Chelsea angle” would never have been seen if that pen hadn’t been given.

That took 90 seconds and the only people who disagreed with it are the team who had the decision given against them.

What concerns me more is giving credence to arguments by people with vested interests. They shouldn’t be discrediting something just because they were on the wrong end of the decision.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Berty23]

Hawkeye is already used on the goal line of course. Using it for offside is probably more problematic as there are no specific lines to aim the cameras at.

This is true but can’t computers just record it and recreate?