Palace v Leeds

[RefIADad]

Maybe I am. Being Naive, but I think that's it. As soon as everyone realises there is a margin of error, and gets comfortable with it, surely all this nonsense goes away.

The issue is that the "line drawing" is partially driven by the amateurs doing this. Just like with many other things in life, plenty of people think they can do others' jobs better despite zero training. As referees, we understand that when the loudmouth guy who has had a couple too many beers and doesn't look like he could jog the length of the pitch starts yelling at us (we've all had "that guy", right?). The same thing happens here. At some point, you just have to accept that people will try to make themselves look smarter than they are. At the end of the day, they will just make themselves look silly.

I'm sure Palace fans were happy that a Leeds goal was taken off the board. As fans, that's what we do. But as a completely neutral observer (I'm a Chelsea fan, and really only a fan at that because I'm an American and Christian Pulisic is on the team), taking that goal off the board infuriates me. That's not what the game wants. Meanwhile, we have situations like the Brighton-Tottenham match where a clear foul (at least to me) isn't called even after Graham Scott goes to the monitor. Now we don't know what the discussion was between Scott and Stockley Park, but if I were at the monitor I would have had a pretty tough time saying, "No, I know I didn't make a big mistake even after seeing that footage."

As I see it, sometimes I think the goal of VAR is to show how good the technology is as opposed to what the objective should be - to correct clear and obvious mistakes or missed calls that the game wants called.

 

[RustyRef]

The challenge with not drawing lines is the camera angle. Yes, there are lots of cameras at PL games, but you are still going to be lucky to get one that is bang in line with the potential offside. And we've all seen that looking an offside from different angles can lead us to differing views, and the lines, if the technology is as good as it purports to be, gets around the camera not being bang in line.

For those saying judge offside just on the feet, that is simply unworkable if VAR isn't in operation, I just cannot see how that would work in reality.

My proposal would be VAR gets a set time period for checking an offside, say 20 seconds. If they can't decide in that time frame it would be deemed to be too tight to call and therefore would be automatically ruled as onside.

 

[socal lurker]

The challenge with not drawing lines is the camera angle. Yes, there are lots of cameras at PL games, but you are still going to be lucky to get one that is bang in line with the potential offside.

And that's OK IMO--if you can't tell from the available angles that the AR was clearly wrong, then the call stands. (MLS has fewer cameras than PL and there are definitely calls that stand because the available camera angles can't tell that the AR was wrong.)

I am inclined to agree that there should be more time controls. (I believe the US NFL (pointy ball) used to have a system that automatically shut off the monitor after some time (90 seconds?) and if the "conclusive evidence" their rules required had not been found in that time period, the call stood. I haven't watched much NFL in years, and I don't know that is still their model.) But I also think time controls may not be necessary with better training and expectations on what a clear error should be.

 

[GraemeS]

And that's OK IMO--if you can't tell from the available angles that the AR was clearly wrong, then the call stands. (MLS has fewer cameras than PL and there are definitely calls that stand because the available camera angles can't tell that the AR was wrong.)

I am inclined to agree that there should be more time controls. (I believe the US NFL (pointy ball) used to have a system that automatically shut off the monitor after some time (90 seconds?) and if the "conclusive evidence" their rules required had not been found in that time period, the call stood. I haven't watched much NFL in years, and I don't know that is still their model.) But I also think time controls may not be necessary with better training and expectations on what a clear error should be.

Call me cynical, but I don't believe for one second that this would be considered OK. The very first time this happens, the TV companies will immediately start applying their own line-drawing technology, "prove" that the decision was wrong and then start moaning about the AR and VAR all over again - except this time, it was avoidable because they had the line-drawing tech but chose not to use it. At least at the moment we are seeing the lines that are drawn - the VAR taking a guess based off a bad angle and then being proven wrong by a TV company who have a vested interest in creating discussion points....that's the worst of both worlds IMO.

Time I'm also not a fan of, purely because that makes the question of who the VAR is even more important. On one end of the scale you'll have the likes of Jared Gillet, who is relatively young and therefore probably tech-savvy and who has worked as a VAR for years. As a result, he will literally be able to consider more angles/replays per 30-seconds than some of the older referees, or even young new referees who haven't used that specific bit of kit before.

VAR is supposed to increase consistency and fairness across the pool of referees. Adding artificial limits that affect different VAR's differently will take us further away from that goal, not closer.

 

[one]

VAR is supposed to increase consistency and fairness across the pool of referees.

This. The argument about what TV and other media may do or say, while can be discussed, should be irrelevant to the implementation decision.

 

[GraemeS]

This. The argument about what TV and other media may do or say, while can be discussed, should be irrelevant to the implementation decision.

Should be, yes, but who decides if increased fairness and consistency has been achieved? The perception of pundits and journalists is what feeds the perception of viewers, which is a huge part of deciding if it's worked or not. Trying to design a system without considering the world you're putting it in is naive and doomed to fail.

 

[one]

Tried it with and already failed

 

[GraemeS]

Tried it with and already failed

Exactly!

 

[PinnerPaul]

Call me cynical, but I don't believe for one second that this would be considered OK. The very first time this happens, the TV companies will immediately start applying their own line-drawing technology, "prove" that the decision was wrong and then start moaning about the AR and VAR all over again - except this time, it was avoidable because they had the line-drawing tech but chose not to use it. At least at the moment we are seeing the lines that are drawn - the VAR taking a guess based off a bad angle and then being proven wrong by a TV company who have a vested interest in creating discussion points....that's the worst of both worlds IMO.

Time I'm also not a fan of, purely because that makes the question of who the VAR is even more important. On one end of the scale you'll have the likes of Jared Gillet, who is relatively young and therefore probably tech-savvy and who has worked as a VAR for years. As a result, he will literally be able to consider more angles/replays per 30-seconds than some of the older referees, or even young new referees who haven't used that specific bit of kit before.

VAR is supposed to increase consistency and fairness across the pool of referees. Adding artificial limits that affect different VAR's differently will take us further away from that goal, not closer.

The VAR room has a replay operator, an AVAR to monitor game while the VAR is reviewing a decision.

I thought the VAR was always a referee who referees PL games anyway and would guess that the replay operator is not a referee.

Anyone know if that 2nd assumption is correct?

 

[GraemeS]

The VAR room has a replay operator, an AVAR to monitor game while the VAR is reviewing a decision.

I thought the VAR was always a referee who referees PL games anyway and would guess that the replay operator is not a referee.

Anyone know if that 2nd assumption is correct?

You may well be right. But even if you are - there will still be a range of replay operators who work quicker/slower than others and who are better/worse at quickly parsing and reacting to VAR instructions. And there's still going to be a difference in how well the VAR can parse the information and how many times they will want to see a replay before making a decision. So by adding time pressure, you're still adding another unnecessary set of variables.

Also, how good are you at doing the dishes? Do you think you would get better or worse if I told you that you only had 60 seconds to do it? We already think the VAR isn't doing a good enough job - why on earth would adding time pressure mean they get better at that job?

 

[RefIADad]

The VAR room has a replay operator, an AVAR to monitor game while the VAR is reviewing a decision.

I thought the VAR was always a referee who referees PL games anyway and would guess that the replay operator is not a referee.

Anyone know if that 2nd assumption is correct?

The AVAR is a Select Group (1 or 2) assistant referee. For example, Sian Massey-Ellis was the AVAR on Southampton-Newcastle last Friday. If VAR operates in England as it does in the US, then the AVAR is also providing more advice on offside as well as reviewing the game while the VAR is checking a particular situation. (Of course, who knows exactly how everyone is being trained).

 

[socal lurker]

Call me cynical, but I don't believe for one second that this would be considered OK. The very first time this happens, the TV companies will immediately start applying their own line-drawing technology, "prove" that the decision was wrong and then start moaning about the AR and VAR all over again - except this time, it was avoidable because they had the line-drawing tech but chose not to use it. At least at the moment we are seeing the lines that are drawn - the VAR taking a guess based off a bad angle and then being proven wrong by a TV company who have a vested interest in creating discussion points....that's the worst of both worlds IMO.

Time I'm also not a fan of, purely because that makes the question of who the VAR is even more important. On one end of the scale you'll have the likes of Jared Gillet, who is relatively young and therefore probably tech-savvy and who has worked as a VAR for years. As a result, he will literally be able to consider more angles/replays per 30-seconds than some of the older referees, or even young new referees who haven't used that specific bit of kit before.

VAR is supposed to increase consistency and fairness across the pool of referees. Adding artificial limits that affect different VAR's differently will take us further away from that goal, not closer.

This is essentially the problem with video review. Everyone wants to just correct the bad errors-xuntil a m8nor error hurts their team. There is no bright line between really bad errors and not so bad errors, so most people have a very result oriented interpretation of it. And that’s why introducing it at all is a slippery slope. (In the US, a goal was recently scored from a CK that should have been a GK that would have easily been reversed by VAR if it was reviewable-xwhen that happens in an important WC or CL game, we can expect that to be added to reviewable calls....and onward...)

There seems to be more outcry over the hyper technical reversals than anything else, but yes, without lines, TV can second guess the VAR. but as i’ve Noted before, the US, without lines, seems to stir far less OS/VAR outrage than the micro calls made with lines.

 

[GraemeS]

This is essentially the problem with video review. Everyone wants to just correct the bad errors-xuntil a m8nor error hurts their team. There is no bright line between really bad errors and not so bad errors, so most people have a very result oriented interpretation of it. And that’s why introducing it at all is a slippery slope. (In the US, a goal was recently scored from a CK that should have been a GK that would have easily been reversed by VAR if it was reviewable-xwhen that happens in an important WC or CL game, we can expect that to be added to reviewable calls....and onward...)

There seems to be more outcry over the hyper technical reversals than anything else, but yes, without lines, TV can second guess the VAR. but as i’ve Noted before, the US, without lines, seems to stir far less OS/VAR outrage than the micro calls made with lines.

That's true, but it's hard to know how much of that is simply a factor of the relative cultural importance of football/soccer. A bad VAR mistake here will make the front pages...you'd be lucky to have a page anywhere in a newspaper in the US dedicated to the MLS. So maybe the reason we don't hear much moaning about the MLS offside decisions is because a relatively smaller % of people actually care enough to moan!

To be honest, this question of "what's reviewable" is one of the main reasons I've always preferred the idea of a challenge system. Make everything reviewable - but only twice per game, so if you want to waste it on meaningless throw-ins around the half way line, feel free. And if you fail to review the vital offside decision/corner decision that led to a goal, again, that's on the manager rather than the referee.

 

[PinnerPaul]

You may well be right. But even if you are - there will still be a range of replay operators who work quicker/slower than others and who are better/worse at quickly parsing and reacting to VAR instructions. And there's still going to be a difference in how well the VAR can parse the information and how many times they will want to see a replay before making a decision. So by adding time pressure, you're still adding another unnecessary set of variables.

Also, how good are you at doing the dishes? Do you think you would get better or worse if I told you that you only had 60 seconds to do it? We already think the VAR isn't doing a good enough job - why on earth would adding time pressure mean they get better at that job?

Not all decision making is improved by taking longer - would your penalty making decision making, for example, improve if you told everyone to wait a minute while you made up your mind?

Not that I'm an advocate of the time limit - as we've discussed - the shortcomings in the picture quality, camera angle, line drawing etc etc means that 4 seconds or 4 minutes doesn't add credibility to these incredibly close offside calls in my view.

 

[PinnerPaul]

This is essentially the problem with video review. Everyone wants to just correct the bad errors-xuntil a m8nor error hurts their team. There is no bright line between really bad errors and not so bad errors, so most people have a very result oriented interpretation of it. And that’s why introducing it at all is a slippery slope. (In the US, a goal was recently scored from a CK that should have been a GK that would have easily been reversed by VAR if it was reviewable-xwhen that happens in an important WC or CL game, we can expect that to be added to reviewable calls....and onward...)

There seems to be more outcry over the hyper technical reversals than anything else, but yes, without lines, TV can second guess the VAR. but as i’ve Noted before, the US, without lines, seems to stir far less OS/VAR outrage than the micro calls made with lines.

but as in the Bamford case, no one suspected an 'error' of any kind - no appeals. Think that's also part of the problem - as we've all been taught, never give a pen for example if no one has seen anything untoward. Even defenders are surprised in some of these cases when offside is (eventually) given. Technically an 'error' has been made - once you accept the freeze frame chosen as 'fact' - which it isn't necessarily - however as its one that no one has seen or could be expected to see with the naked eye - football doesn't 'expect' or indeed now 'want' these decisions to be made.

 

[es1]

but as in the Bamford case, no one suspected an 'error' of any kind - no appeals. Think that's also part of the problem - as we've all been taught, never give a pen for example if no one has seen anything untoward. Even defenders are surprised in some of these cases when offside is (eventually) given. Technically an 'error' has been made - once you accept the freeze frame chosen as 'fact' - which it isn't necessarily - however as its one that no one has seen or could be expected to see with the naked eye - football doesn't 'expect' or indeed now 'want' these decisions to be made.

you've hit on why i hate it so much, reviewing everything all the time makes absolutely no sense at all. either have reviews initiated by the teams or the ref or it doesnt work

 

[one]

Accepting VAR offside decisions as factual because technology is used is akin to accepting everything you read on the internet as truth.

There are many flaws in the technology used making the offside decision far from factual.

 

[Big Cat]

Wonder how many times (on average) the BT Sport commentators say 'VAR' during a game
60? Higher or Lower? We can have a spread bet. I'll set the spread 58 to 62 (cos I like my margin)

 

[RefIADad]

you've hit on why i hate it so much, reviewing everything all the time makes absolutely no sense at all. either have reviews initiated by the teams or the ref or it doesnt work

The challenge system could and should work, but I'd also like to have officials still be able to have the right to intervene on things like violent conduct behind the play, mass confrontations, and the (incredibly rare) where GLT fails but VAR can clearly identify a ball over the line for a goal (i.e. the Sheffield United-Aston Villa play). Mass confrontations can obviously result in unseen incidents. The ability to catch VC off the ball is always important. Being able to rule on a goal as a fail safe (or should be) is an important item. Other than those items, I'm fine with using a challenge-type system for other items.

 

[es1]

The challenge system could and should work, but I'd also like to have officials still be able to have the right to intervene on things like violent conduct behind the play, mass confrontations, and the (incredibly rare) where GLT fails but VAR can clearly identify a ball over the line for a goal (i.e. the Sheffield United-Aston Villa play). Mass confrontations can obviously result in unseen incidents. The ability to catch VC off the ball is always important. Being able to rule on a goal as a fail safe (or should be) is an important item. Other than those items, I'm fine with using a challenge-type system for other items.

I can certainly agree with that