VAR thread

[baitman]

Not a VAR incident, but where do you gents stand on the 3rd Arsenal goal, and Arteta's role in it (ie coming a long way out of the technical area to catch a bad pass, throw it to Saka to take the quick throw in and 8 secs later it leads to a goal)?

Do we give credit to Arteta for quick thinking, or in reality should play be pulled back for a technical infringement?

Ref should defo have stopped it. Interfering with play.
If they are outside their little box then the 4th **** can tell them to get back, but to be outside and playing the ball...

[Mark79]

[ame]https://twitter.com/btsportfootball/status/1503107450504986633[/ame]

[Exiled_red]

Will share the tweet rather than a link to the mail itself.

[ame="https://twitter.com/GaryLineker/status/1549782042367430656"]https://twitter.com/GaryLineker/status/1549782042367430656[/ame]

Essentially article says that there is probably an error of about 132 milliseconds in determining when the ball is played for offside decisions. People tend to think that the ball was played 132ms after it was, so players often aren't where they are deemed to be by VAR when the ball is played...

[Cerbie]

Will share the tweet rather than a link to the mail itself.

https://twitter.com/GaryLineker/stat...82042367430656

Essentially article says that there is probably an error of about 132 milliseconds in determining when the ball is played for offside decisions. People tend to think that the ball was played 132ms after it was, so players often aren't where they are deemed to be by VAR when the ball is played...

132ms is a huge error. A player running at 20 mph (32kph) is covering 8.9 m/s. So in 0.132 s, they would move 1.1m? Or is my insomnia maths bollox?

[baitman]

https://twitter.com/btsportfootball/...07450504986633

100% the defender touched the ball. No foul, correct decision

[Charly]

132ms is a huge error. A player running at 20 mph (32kph) is covering 8.9 m/s. So in 0.132 s, they would move 1.1m? Or is my insomnia maths bollox?

I have been saying this for ages.

All the fancy lines showing where the players are but no focus on when the ball was actually played, which is a bit harder to determine as its moving all of the time.

Misdirection.

[Charly]

100% the defender touched the ball. No foul, correct decision

Touching the ball does not stop it from being a foul, though.

[wiw]

I have been saying this for ages.

All the fancy lines showing where the players are but no focus on when the ball was actually played, which is a bit harder to determine as its moving all of the time.

Misdirection.

132ms is a huge error. A player running at 20 mph (32kph) is covering 8.9 m/s. So in 0.132 s, they would move 1.1m? Or is my insomnia maths bollox?

Half the problem is the cameras used no? The Hawk-eye goal line cameras are 500 FPS, compared to the VAR potato cameras

[baitman]

Touching the ball does not stop it from being a foul, though.

OK. The defender played the ball before any contact was made with the attacker. It wasn't dangerous play.

[Exiled_red]

132ms is a huge error. A player running at 20 mph (32kph) is covering 8.9 m/s. So in 0.132 s, they would move 1.1m? Or is my insomnia maths bollox?

No that's right, I had previously said there might be multiple frames where the foot and ball are in contact and at 50 frames per second you could have an error of a couple of frames which would be 40ms but this is much worse than I thought

[Cerbie]

No that's right, I had previously said there might be multiple frames where the foot and ball are in contact and at 50 frames per second you could have an error of a couple of frames which would be 40ms but this is much worse than I thought

Thanks. I wasn’t sure because offsides of a couple of mm have been given and the calculation was an order of magnitude different.

This study proves the camera frame rate, human error and camera positioning from ground to ground, when compounded, make it little better than the VAR Ref eyeballing it! Will be interesting if they improve the tech along the lines of Hawkeye or not. Maybe they will tweak the protocol to make it in favour of the attacking player? I live in hope!

[rudedog]

OK. The defender played the ball before any contact was made with the attacker. It wasn't dangerous play.

1. The defender clipped the players foot before he got to the ball.
2. The defender didn’t get enough of the ball to deviate it far enough away from the attacker.
3. This happened back in March, you can tell it’s preseason when we are discussing VAR decisions made in a foreign league from 4 months ago

[kingfunk]

I heard a proposal from Keith Hackett this morning on 5 live, basically saying referees being refs on Saturday and then VAR officials on Sunday is flawed. Referee’s should be left referee and VAR should be taken over by an independent panel such as experienced ex managers, ex players and even ex referees, pretty good idea to be fair.

[Kenneth]

Just use it for offsides and potential red cards.

[Shaggy]

It's quite incredible what a mess they've made of it. It's infinitely worse than pre-technology 'human error'. I would bin it now but that's never going to happen.