VAR

[Lastfootstamper]

What subjective decision-making is it used in in any of those other sports you mentioned? And what's this margin of error of which you speak? Admittedly I've not watched a lot of telly analysis this season, but I'm still seeing dots drawn down from "tee-shirt lines".

[chrisw1]

What subjective decision-making is it used in in any of those other sports you mentioned? And what's this margin of error of which you speak? Admittedly I've not watched a lot of telly analysis this season, but I'm still seeing dots drawn down from "tee-shirt lines".

The margin for error is they increased the thickness of the lines for offside, which has made most decisions a lot less controversial.  Automation will take out the controversy of human drawn lines, as would refining of which parts of the body are offside etc

For rugby it is used in tackle and dangerous play situations, if there's an offside or obstruction etc in the build up to a try, that sort of thing (in addition to ball grounding for a try, players in touch, forward passes etc).  In hockey, mainly for fouls in the D - stick tackles etc.

[eamonn]

The amount of goals pre-VAR that were actually offside is a scary thought. But then there would have been millions more penalties given too.

[Pat Mustard]

The offside thing is still the one that makes me most annoyed though, as it is being represented as though the technology is perfectly sound and it comes down to interpretation over what parts of a body can be offside.  Apart from the clear inconsistencies in how it is being applied, the technology is still not there to make this foolproof, regardless of the thickness of the lines.

I've spouted off about this before, but who is deciding when the ball gets played?  There are hundreds of examples of this, but here is a picture that shows the problem:





Look at the ball in this picture, and how blurred the image is.  On something this marginal, how has someone made the decision on when the pass has been made when you can't possibly tell from a 2D image?  Whoever is sitting in the VAR room has made a decision on when the ball is played the same as the Assistant referee has to, just using a different criteria.

I appreciate this is from a couple of years ago and the lines are now thicker, but it doesn't change the fact that for it to be 100% accurate you would need camera technology that doesn't exist.  You are also never going to get away from the fact that this leads to the ridiculous situation where you might not know if a goal has been awarded for 2 or 3 minutes. 

Yes, there were occasions where goals were given in the past that maybe shouldn't, and vice versa, but it wasn't that prevalent - it maybe affected us a couple of times a season.  It certainly isn't worth what we've lost in terms of the spontaneity of celebrating a goal, where you're never sure if it's going to count until the opposition are kicking off again.

[Lastfootstamper]

What subjective decision-making is it used in in any of those other sports you mentioned? And what's this margin of error of which you speak? Admittedly I've not watched a lot of telly analysis this season, but I'm still seeing dots drawn down from "tee-shirt lines".

The margin for error is they increased the thickness of the lines for offside, which has made most decisions a lot less controversial.  Automation will take out the controversy of human drawn lines, as would refining of which parts of the body are offside etc

For rugby it is used in tackle and dangerous play situations, if there's an offside or obstruction etc in the build up to a try, that sort of thing (in addition to ball grounding for a try, players in touch, forward passes etc).  In hockey, mainly for fouls in the D - stick tackles etc.

Those are all objective decisions. With tennis, it's "did it hit or miss the line?". And the same with cricket, it's all establishment of fact, not validation of opinion.
I had to look at hockey as I wasn't sure how popular it was to be able to afford the technology. Am I right in believing it's only used in major global international tournaments, and then it's one appeal per team until they get a wrong one? And then still not without its flaws
https://www.thehockeypaper.co.uk/articles/2022/08/01/commonwealth-games-hockey-ghana-keep-wales-on-their-toes-despite-video-umpire-howler
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/olympics/2021/07/25/hockey-has-somehow-achieved-impossible-has-irritating-var/

[chrisw1]

They aren't all objective in rugby.  You are right about tennis and cricket, but even then 'umpire's call' comes in to it on lbw.

With hockey, it doesn't really matter how much it's used, it's whether it works when it is used.  The point is, all of these sports have their own version of VAR and it all works incredibly well.  There's nothing so unique about football that means our own version can't work well too, once they get it right.

Non of this changes my general point that in a ref taking a second look at a decision doesn't need to be massively time consuming or controversial. The major flaw at the moment is the way they have chosen to operate it and the repeated errors being made by the incompetants running it.

[Lastfootstamper]

All the ones I highlighted are objective. They either happened or they didn't. As for the umpire's call, that's still reliant on using the best available technology to establish the fact that at least 50% of the ball would have hit at least one of the stumps, not somebody's opinion of whether or not it would have hit.

Other than offside and the ball being in the field of play, every decision in football is down to the opinion of the person making it, be they wearing boots and a whistle, sat at a monitor in Stockley Park, or propping up the bar in the Dog & Partridge. And I'm a proponent of technology's use for these two things.

[Ad@m]

They aren't all objective in rugby.  You are right about tennis and cricket, but even then 'umpire's call' comes in to it on lbw.

With hockey, it doesn't really matter how much it's used, it's whether it works when it is used.  The point is, all of these sports have their own version of VAR and it all works incredibly well.  There's nothing so unique about football that means our own version can't work well too, once they get it right.

Non of this changes my general point that in a ref taking a second look at a decision doesn't need to be massively time consuming or controversial. The major flaw at the moment is the way they have chosen to operate it and the repeated errors being made by the incompetants running it.

Umpires call is the answer to offside.

Linos should let play run but once the play finishes, if they felt it was offside they stick their flag up.  VAR then get 10 seconds to review.  No longer.  No silly lines.  If an error is obvious from one replay, the decision is changed.  If it's not an obvious error, umpires call, and stick with the onfield decision.

If you need silly lines or 3 minutes to work out if a player is offside, based on imperfect technology then you're doing it wrong.

[Lastfootstamper]

I can't believe this was nigh-on a decade ago, but I have to admit that my position has not been changed in the very slightest. Our thread on the introduction of goal line technology from April 2013.
https://www.heroesandvillains.info/forumv3/index.php?topic=49540.0

[KRS]

The marginal offside decisions really piss me off. If an attacking players shoulder, toe or whatever other body part they decide is relevant, is a few centimetres ahead of the defender then they are level, and there is absolutely no reason to disallow a goal on this basis.

In the example image posted above by Pat, the players should be considered as being level. What ever happened to the consideration that “level is onside”? It’s been totally wiped out of the game with this VAR sanitisation, and now favours defenders by disallowing perfectly good goals rather than previously where the rules encouraged attacking play and scoring goals.

[chrisw1]

In terms of drawing the lines, the new automated system in the UCL is much, much quicker.

The technology will improve.  They've tried sensors in the ball.  It's possible all players will have a gps (they already wear one) between their shoulders and that will be the single measure - I think that's what I would be in favour of. 

In short, the technical part of offside is very fixable and will be sorted shortly.  There will still be refs interpretation of impacting play etc, as there should be.

As for everything else, I'm essentially saying in my view a ref should just have an opportunity to take a second look at major decisions on one of several monitors around the ground, with a VAR to assist with angles and advise as needed or not.  It would be a quick sense check, with his attention drawn to anything he may have missed.  I don't see why that wouldn't work or why it would be too painful for fans.

[paul_e]

What subjective decision-making is it used in in any of those other sports you mentioned? And what's this margin of error of which you speak? Admittedly I've not watched a lot of telly analysis this season, but I'm still seeing dots drawn down from "tee-shirt lines".

LBW calls in cricket have been improved dramatically by the inclusion of technology, I can't imagine anyone would consider that a controversial point.

Hawkeye in Tennis is now so ingrained into top level competition that I can't imagine any scenario where people would prefer to not have it.

Rugby is very different so there's nothing so clear but using video to confirm the very tight calls on stepping out of play or grounding has had a positive impact.

All of the complaints about how bad VAR is feed into the point Ad@m objected to that football fans are less willing to accept VAR than has bene the case in other sports. In much the same way football fans are far more insistent on maintaining the lie that the professional game and grassroots are exactly the same, which is another part of the reason VAR will always struggle to be fully embedded. Football fans (in England at least) are, in comparison to most major sports, luddites who deep down feel that any changes to the game are examples of their sports being taken away from them. That means changes don't just need to be marginal, incremental improvements, they need to show a clear and immediate improvement to the game and even then you'll have complaints for years (just look at the backpass changes).

[Lastfootstamper]

The marginal offside decisions really piss me off. If an attacking players shoulder, toe or whatever other body part they decide is relevant, is a few centimetres ahead of the defender then they are level, and there is absolutely no reason to disallow a goal on this basis.

In the example image posted above by Pat, the players should be considered as being level. What ever happened to the consideration that “level is onside”? It’s been totally wiped out of the game with this VAR sanitisation, and now favours defenders by disallowing perfectly good goals rather than previously where the rules encouraged attacking play and scoring goals.

I know I'm pretty much on my own with this opinion, but attackers shouldn't get the benefit of a margin of error. They're fucking offside, the cheating ******.

[Pat Mustard]

In terms of drawing the lines, the new automated system in the UCL is much, much quicker.

The technology will improve.  They've tried sensors in the ball.  It's possible all players will have a gps (they already wear one) between their shoulders and that will be the single measure - I think that's what I would be in favour of. 

In short, the technical part of offside is very fixable and will be sorted shortly.  There will still be refs interpretation of impacting play etc, as there should be.

As for everything else, I'm essentially saying in my view a ref should just have an opportunity to take a second look at major decisions on one of several monitors around the ground, with a VAR to assist with angles and advise as needed or not.  It would be a quick sense check, with his attention drawn to anything he may have missed.  I don't see why that wouldn't work or why it would be too painful for fans.

I've got a better idea for offsides.  We just do away with Linesmen, and attach electrodes to the genitals of all the players which discharge an electric shock when their GPS detects that they are offside.  The current passed through them would increase relevant to the distance they are offside.

Of course, this could introduce a whole new skillset for players. As the only way of knowing if someone is offside is by their reaction to having an electrical current passed through their gentlemen's area, we could get a stack of strikers whose main attribute is their relative imperviousness to pain.  I could imagine this leading to a whole new generation of old-fashioned Mick Harford style centre forwards who spend their entire time goal-hanging around the 6 yard box whilst gritting their teeth as their danglies slowly get fried.

It would still be better than VAR.

[Scott Nielsen]

What subjective decision-making is it used in in any of those other sports you mentioned? And what's this margin of error of which you speak? Admittedly I've not watched a lot of telly analysis this season, but I'm still seeing dots drawn down from "tee-shirt lines".

The margin for error is they increased the thickness of the lines for offside, which has made most decisions a lot less controversial.  Automation will take out the controversy of human drawn lines, as would refining of which parts of the body are offside etc

For rugby it is used in tackle and dangerous play situations, if there's an offside or obstruction etc in the build up to a try, that sort of thing (in addition to ball grounding for a try, players in touch, forward passes etc).  In hockey, mainly for fouls in the D - stick tackles etc.

Those are all objective decisions. With tennis, it's "did it hit or miss the line?". And the same with cricket, it's all establishment of fact, not validation of opinion.
I had to look at hockey as I wasn't sure how popular it was to be able to afford the technology. Am I right in believing it's only used in major global international tournaments, and then it's one appeal per team until they get a wrong one? And then still not without its flaws
https://www.thehockeypaper.co.uk/articles/2022/08/01/commonwealth-games-hockey-ghana-keep-wales-on-their-toes-despite-video-umpire-howler
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/olympics/2021/07/25/hockey-has-somehow-achieved-impossible-has-irritating-var/

You have unlimited challenges in hockey but if the challenge is unsuccessful you first get a minor penalty (2 min in the booth) and for every subsequent challenge that is unsuccessful it is a 4 min penalty.

I think it works quite well. Coaches only challenge when they are very confident they are correct.

EDIT: Only now realized that by hockey you meant field hockey, sorry.