VAR thread

[Maxiedge]

That's my point, that wasn't a clear mistake by the ref. It was headed at his hand in a 'natural' position at point blank. But handballs are suddenly a different kettle of fish to everything else. So that is overturned as being a 'clear mistake', but soft ones like last night or if a referee misses a massive foul like on Matip are subjective. Makes zero ****ing sense. They were trying to remove subjectivity but ****ed it up further.

If that handball is a standard pen every time, it's going to be so frustrating, because those things happen, but they don't effect play and don't deserve to be punished.

unless it's Man City

[Exiled_red]

I don't see the point in a VAR system where when everyone looking at the incident says "that's not a penalty" but the VAR rules/implementation say that the decision has to stand, then there is clearly something wrong with the rules/implementation of VAR and they either need to be changed or we don't bother with VAR. Because it isn't fit for purpose.

Before VAR it was frustrating if a referee got a decision wrong, but understandable because he only got to see it once in real time, if VAR can look at it from multiple angles and in slow motion and still the decision is wrong it is infuriating and pointless.

[Norbs]

The weird thing about VAR at the moment is the "clear and obvious" excuse trotted out to justify supporting an incorrect refereeing decision. We dont want to undermine referees do we....

In reality they are not only undermining referees by "agreeing" with their decisions when VAR reviews the incorrect decision but they are also undermining the whole purpose of the VAR system itself

[Exiled_red]

The weird thing about VAR at the moment is the "clear and obvious" excuse trotted out to justify supporting an incorrect refereeing decision. We dont want to undermine referees do we....

In reality they are not only undermining referees by "agreeing" with their decisions when VAR reviews the incorrect decision but they are also undermining the whole purpose of the VAR system itself

Part of me wonders if some of the powers that be don't really want VAR and have developed a system that doesn't work to show it up as being ****. Then I realise no one in the ruling bodies of football are smart enough to do something like that, and they just have developed a **** system that isn't fit for purpose.

[Tribute]

So those who wanted VAR because it was supposed to almost guarantee the right decision every time have been fobbed off and told lies. There were those who didn't want because it would cause even more confusion, be open to interpretation and still get decisions wrong - and are now being proved right.

It's like ****ing Brexit 2.0...

[BillobShaisley]

It's football, some stuff is interpretation. When is a shoulder to shoulder bump a foul. What is dangerous vs late etc.

There will always be talking points and errors. There are less of them. VAR will get better as its use matures but it has to be better than Lampard's goal VS Germany in World Cup being missed.

[Pablo]

I was alway pro VAR, but in it's current implementation it's impossible to defend it. It's a shambles.

Bin it off quickly and go back to the drawing board.

[Exiled_red]

That tight offside in the Leicester Spurs games, MOTD are saying they are unsure when the ball leaves his foot, but it's ruled offside by what seems to be the tightest of margins, they have to zoom in so that you can see that there are 2 different lines on the screen.

[Exiled_red]

Also not sure why Burnley didn't have a pen for the foul on Barnes, it's like our Matip one last week, looks a clear pen on the replay, but wasn't given by the official on the pitch, so no pen.

[Kenneth]

That tight offside in the Leicester Spurs games, MOTD are saying they are unsure when the ball leaves his foot, but it's ruled offside by what seems to be the tightest of margins, they have to zoom in so that you can see that there are 2 different lines on the screen.

I think the issue is identifying exactly when the ball was kicked, they only have video to go from, and video isn't continuous, it's a series of frames a few hundredths of seconds apart. If contact withe ball happens between frames the the VAR has to consider the offside from the next frame, and with a striker running quickly, that can mean they are several cms further forward then when the ball was actually kicked. The margin of error in the system is potentially greater than the distance that the attacker was deemed offside.

[Exiled_red]

I think the issue is identifying exactly when the ball was kicked, they only have video to go from, and video isn't continuous, it's a series of frames a few hundredths of seconds apart. If contact withe ball happens between frames the the VAR has to consider the offside from the next frame, and with a striker running quickly, that can mean they are several cms further forward then when the ball was actually kicked. The margin of error in the system is potentially greater than the distance that the attacker was deemed offside.

I read that the VAR cameras have frame rate of 120 frames per second, which means ~8/1000 of a second. I could be wrong but I suspect that there will be multiple frames of contact between the foot and the ball, ultimately it doesn't matter because you have an uncertainty either way (either you have too few frames to see when the ball was kicked or you are in the position where you are having to determine the frame in which it leaves the players foot).

Some very crude maths that I did based on this:
Fastest PL player can supposedly run at 35km/h according to this:https://www.express.co.uk/sport/foot...ed-footballers. Now assuming those are done as pure sprints (no ball involved) lets assume the striker in a match situation is running towards goal at 20km/h, in the time between frames which is 8/1000 of a second he could cover ~4.5cm. Assuming that the defender is standing still and not stepping up, then surely VAR can't resolve an offside to better than that. But it looks like they are trying to do that.

Maybe I'm missing something with this? But to my mind those seem not too outlandish assumptions and if the striker is moving faster or the defender is stepping up then the resolution is worse than that. Perhaps someone can tell me where I'm going wrong?

[Kenneth]

I read that the cameras captured 50 frame per second. And sterling supposedly had one ruled out for one measured at 2.4cm, which could end up well within the margin of error.

[Exiled_red]

I read that the cameras captured 50 frame per second. And sterling supposedly had one ruled out for one measured at 2.4cm, which could end up well within the margin of error.

I got it from this:
http://hottechgadgetnews.com/var-how...rf-technology/ and was assuming that the cameras used for decisions are the ones with the highest frame rate which isn't necessarily the case.

If you half the frame rate then the margin of error doubles. Also my rather crude calculation above doesn't allow for errors in determining which part of the body you can score with and any errors in drawing lines across the screen etc all of which makes that value bigger.

Even if my calculations are wrong, I would be really surprised if the precision is much better than that, to my mind it has to be centimetres and not millimetres. What was the uncertainty on goal line technology that's about 0.5-1cm or so I believe. There's no way VAR can be as accurate as that.

[Exiled_red]

The one yesterday in the Leicester Spurs game was supposedly 1.6cm offside according to VAR

[McDermotX]

Great system.


Love it.