VAR thread

[topscorer]

Liverpool goal definitely should have stood
Wolves offside at the point the freeze frame was shown.

Problem is we now have technology the laws are not for for purpose. We can slow the footage down to what, 60fps? What point is the ball 'played'? Is it the frame at which the bodily contact with the ball first occurs, is it the first frame at which the contact between player and ball ceases? At walking pace of 4 mph you would cover 2.9 cm in a single frame if 60 fps. That's a hell of a distance if the foot and ball are in contact for 5 frames and if the player is running its even more

Agreed, margin of error is huge with the technology they are using. Then you need to consider the angles of the cameras too. It's going to be different at every stadium.

They haven't written some sophisticated algorithm using geometry formulas to decide offside. A bunch of blokes are looking at freeze framed TV images just like we do!

I thought offside had to be clear and obvious before VAR. It should be the same with VAR until they have a more accurate way to calculate it.

Thankfully it was in our favor today.

[EwarWoo]

The ridiculous amount of money in the PL you'd think they could come up with something better. Like you say an algorithm so a computer can take all the bias out of it, or if the technology isn't there have a panel all working independently and go with the majority.

And give them no feed of the match, just a replay of up to the event so they're not biased by the refs call or what happened afterwards.

[topscorer]

It's funny I've seen a few quotes from managers the last couple of weeks complaining that the VAR people don't have the feel of the game because they aren't in the stadium and the referee should use the screen to decide.

But I agree with you, shouldn't be anything emotional in a VAR decision. It's supposed to be fact based so on that point I think the EPL has it correct discouraging referees to use the monitors and encouraging them to trust the VAR team.

[Exiled_red]

The 'fairest' way of doing it in a similar manner to what is currently used would be to make a decision on multiple frames. It is extremely unlikely that you capture the exact moment the ball is played you will have one frame just before and one just after, if the attacker is beyond the last defender in both they are offside. If one says on and the other off then the attacker gets the benefit of the doubt and they are onside. This removes any effect of the movement of the players between frames which is likely the biggest source of uncertainty.

[Maxiedge]

How about if the lines drawn along the pitch overlap, then VAR goes with original decision?

[dom9]

Agreed, margin of error is huge with the technology they are using. Then you need to consider the angles of the cameras too. It's going to be different at every stadium.

They haven't written some sophisticated algorithm using geometry formulas to decide offside. A bunch of blokes are looking at freeze framed TV images just like we do!

I thought offside had to be clear and obvious before VAR. It should be the same with VAR until they have a more accurate way to calculate it.

Thankfully it was in our favor today.

There is a set of cameras creating a matrix for those lines.

The lines you see are parallel to the the pitch. The placement of them by the official is subjective.

[Mark79]

The 'fairest' way of doing it in a similar manner to what is currently used would be to make a decision on multiple frames. It is extremely unlikely that you capture the exact moment the ball is played you will have one frame just before and one just after, if the attacker is beyond the last defender in both they are offside. If one says on and the other off then the attacker gets the benefit of the doubt and they are onside. This removes any effect of the movement of the players between frames which is likely the biggest source of uncertainty.

It takes VAR about 3 or 4 mins to analyse and decide on just 1 frame. If they're analysing 2, we could be waiting close to 10 mins for a decision.

Just simplify it. Do away with the lines. Review the best angle and If you can't see a clear and obvious offside with the naked eye, then let the goal stand.

[dom9]

Here is how the technology works.

https://www.premierleague.com/news/1488423

[Exiled_red]

The drawing of the lines etc is IMO the smallest source of uncertainty, even the human error of a few pixels in positioning on such high resolution images is negligible in comparison to determining when the ball was played and how far players have moved in between frames

What I had read previously suggests that the VAR cameras were all 120fps, this is suggesting that also use the broadcast cameras at 50fps, that means that the uncertainty in position is more than doubled.

Also if the cameras are running at different frame rates they can't be synchronized which would make it impossible to use different cameras to determine when the ball was played and where the attacker and defenders are accurately.

At 50fps with an attacker walking forward and a defender stepping up at walking pace you have a change in position of about 8cm between frames so an uncertainty of about 4cm in a best case senario.

[Kenneth]

We talked about all of this in August I'm sure. It's so bizarre that these issues weren't apparent in testing.

[Buzzo]

I think there is an expectation of a full proof system, like we have in say tennis or cricket, and that is not achievable. The Rugby example is as close as we can get.

For me it works well enough, it’s the minuscule variations in offside that are the biggest issue.

If they rework offside (surely most of these tight calls could get put down as level is on) giving a degree of tolerance to the call in favour of the attacker, then it might work.

The expectation is that we have a 100% system. All that’s happened is instead of discussing massive refereeing errors whereby there was no system to recognise or correct, we are instead discussing minute offside calls. That has to be an improvement.

I just don’t think VAR was ready to be rolled out this season. It needed 2-3 more years of testing.

Also the Aussie example given above should be as close as we get to the perfect running of the system including the involvement of the explanation of the decision, meaning that if we as supporters disagree with a decision, then at least we immediately know what we disagree with.

[Kenneth]

'Level' was the plaster for the current offside rules. If it was super close, most people would accept a level verdict, even begrudgingly. But level no longer exists.

[Buzzo]

The tech is effectively removing level from the equation. That’s why I wonder if a tolerance needs to be added? Or a reworking of the rule?

They’ve made it way more difficult as things stand. Also the ‘play on’ element is an accident waiting to happen, as was almost evidenced yesterday with the ref blowing his whistle on a perfectly good goal.

[Exiled_red]

It may sound crazy but I do wonder if they included offside in VAR because they had seen TV analysts showing up incorrect offside decisions on Sky or MOTD etc and thought that they could do the same without much trouble but didn't put enough thought into it. I have said for a while that I don't think enough thought has gone into its implementation.

[Buzzo]

Souness’s Law.

[ame="https://youtu.be/Wp0Q0VhCBS4"]Jamie Carragher & Graeme Souness disagree over offside rule change! - YouTube[/ame]