FIFA Spokesperson Diane Abbott....... The stats are in and VAR has made 99.3% correct decisions, I need to look for the other 15% and get back to you!!
World Cup Second refereeing briefing streamed live.
- Thread starter one
- Start date
FIFA Spokesperson Diane Abbott....... The stats are in and VAR has made 99.3% correct decisions, I need to look for the other 15% and get back to you!!
They're pushing the 99% statistic because, and I'm just going to be hyperbolic for once, I'm guessing that VAR is actually 95% correct. The same as the on-field referee, but that doesn't sound good on paper. So fudge the numbers a bit; 96-7% doesn't sound a worthwhile % improvement, so hey, let's go to 99% to make it sound 'almost' perfect. Dangle some press lines: "With refinement we may one day get an 100% correct decision rate." Fantasy, but hey, it's good headlines.
Who's going to argue against a 99% statistic? To be honest, I genuinely feel that on field referees getting 95% decision correct is phenomenal and should be commended. I'm not sold that VAR is getting 99% right though. No chance.
Who's going to argue against a 99% statistic? To be honest, I genuinely feel that on field referees getting 95% decision correct is phenomenal and should be commended. I'm not sold that VAR is getting 99% right though. No chance.
bester
RefChat Addict
The stat isn’t in any way saying the referee is 95% correct with his decisions.
I think it means 95% of the time when VAR viewed something there wasn’t a clear and obvious error with the referees decision.
Collina is now a politician, he gave a similarly positive spiel about additional assistants when at UEFA. If he believed in them so much in them where are they at this World Cup?
I think it means 95% of the time when VAR viewed something there wasn’t a clear and obvious error with the referees decision.
Collina is now a politician, he gave a similarly positive spiel about additional assistants when at UEFA. If he believed in them so much in them where are they at this World Cup?
Last edited:
Ciley Myrus
RefChat Addict
santa sangria
RefChat Addict
Couple of points without multiquoting from the thread:
- Handaball: Collina’s explanation being unsatisfactory was not about the unnatural position, it was because he said ”if a player heads the ball onto their hand it can’t be handball.” This kind of definitive statement is a mistake to make. But it was pretty clear that he was saying the Iran handball was one of the VAR mistakes. That made me feel better.
- The stats: are nonsense IMHO. I go straight back to Pavon being fouled in the box. Di Maria’s dive (protocol problem I know). Plenty of clear cases where VAR should have acted. The stats are bent because the system is designed to load the ref with mistakes and absolve the VAR.
- Blind defence of the protocol does not flatter anyone.
- If you didn’t see thr vid Collina is quite clear that the Kane non-pens triggered some kind of mandate to the officials. He pointed out that - via the Panama Kane pen - the crazy holding was eradicated.
- Forgetting VAR, what wasn’t really asked/answered was why so many YCs for SPA, dissent and delay were not given. I think that is actually the thing that most affects “us” and could lead to changes in how we work. Shame Collina did not get pressed on that more.
- No VC SFP red cards is amazing. I think this has to be related to the psych effect of VAR... which makes me think that is also linked to how teams have looked defensively uncertain... VAR is the new variable from previous tournaments and teams are usually more together!
- Handaball: Collina’s explanation being unsatisfactory was not about the unnatural position, it was because he said ”if a player heads the ball onto their hand it can’t be handball.” This kind of definitive statement is a mistake to make. But it was pretty clear that he was saying the Iran handball was one of the VAR mistakes. That made me feel better.
- The stats: are nonsense IMHO. I go straight back to Pavon being fouled in the box. Di Maria’s dive (protocol problem I know). Plenty of clear cases where VAR should have acted. The stats are bent because the system is designed to load the ref with mistakes and absolve the VAR.
- Blind defence of the protocol does not flatter anyone.
- If you didn’t see thr vid Collina is quite clear that the Kane non-pens triggered some kind of mandate to the officials. He pointed out that - via the Panama Kane pen - the crazy holding was eradicated.
- Forgetting VAR, what wasn’t really asked/answered was why so many YCs for SPA, dissent and delay were not given. I think that is actually the thing that most affects “us” and could lead to changes in how we work. Shame Collina did not get pressed on that more.
- No VC SFP red cards is amazing. I think this has to be related to the psych effect of VAR... which makes me think that is also linked to how teams have looked defensively uncertain... VAR is the new variable from previous tournaments and teams are usually more together!
The draw is being made for the ref for the final.... who has shone the most???
one
RefChat Addict
the 99.3% is an inflated number because they included a lot of incidents that should not have been included. For example every goal is checked. Out of 116 goals scored say 80 or so didn't even need a referee to decide if it was legal. They were very clear cut. Yet they are included into the VAR accurate basket. Similar with many of other 335 incidents checked. Many of them were so clear cut that it would be ridicules to claim then as a VAR success indicator.
And then comes the many other incidents where no matter what decision had been made (one way or other) they have dropped into the accurate basket. Because they are subjective and its based OTOOTR. all 50-50s, or even up to 80-20s are in this lot. The penalty in Aus V France for example. No matter what decision was made after review, they would have put it as a accurate basket. Or Ronaldo yellow card for example for me was a red card. I know many others thought it was a red card but possibly only 2 or 3 out of 10 would think it was a yellow. Yet it is considered an accurate decision.
The only incidents they have put in the inaccurate basket is the ones which are absolutely wrong without a shadow of doubt. That is why their 99.3% is so inflated.
And then comes the many other incidents where no matter what decision had been made (one way or other) they have dropped into the accurate basket. Because they are subjective and its based OTOOTR. all 50-50s, or even up to 80-20s are in this lot. The penalty in Aus V France for example. No matter what decision was made after review, they would have put it as a accurate basket. Or Ronaldo yellow card for example for me was a red card. I know many others thought it was a red card but possibly only 2 or 3 out of 10 would think it was a yellow. Yet it is considered an accurate decision.
The only incidents they have put in the inaccurate basket is the ones which are absolutely wrong without a shadow of doubt. That is why their 99.3% is so inflated.
one
RefChat Addict
However I will support VAR thats because overall it adds a lot more value than it removes. .
VAR changed 17 decisions (KMIs).
If we remove VAR, the only benefit would be the one KMI in point one would be fixed. KMIs in point 3 are neutral (can go either way). However we will also remove the benefit of the 10 incidents it fixed.
In other words the benefit of having VAR outweighs its removal by 10 to 1. So would have preferred FIFA come and say VAR adds 90% value instead of saying it has 99.3% accuracy.
VAR changed 17 decisions (KMIs).
- 1 KMI (possibly) change a clearly good decision to a bad decision (Iran penalty v Portugal). Even that was subjective and some would say it was a good call.
- 10 (roughly) KMIs change a clearly bad decision to a good one
- 6 (roughly) were subjective, the decision could have been argued either way.
If we remove VAR, the only benefit would be the one KMI in point one would be fixed. KMIs in point 3 are neutral (can go either way). However we will also remove the benefit of the 10 incidents it fixed.
In other words the benefit of having VAR outweighs its removal by 10 to 1. So would have preferred FIFA come and say VAR adds 90% value instead of saying it has 99.3% accuracy.
Last edited:
I would argue that this assessment is mitigated by the magnified controversy when they do get it wrong, the loss of spontaneous decisions & outcomes (like when a goal is scored and checked), the overall disruption to the game, the deterioration in player behavior and the absence of the necessary added time to compensate for checks/reviews. Therefore, on balance, I'm not convinced VAR adds value
Accuracy is better than spontaneity.
Disruption has largely been minimal bar a few games which were farcical.
In some instances it has deteriorated player behaviour but in many they have accepted it and not appealed because of it. Certainly no clear net deterioration.
10 minutes a match are spent waiting for free kicks, 7 minutes for throw ins. A couple of minutes for VAR is nothing in comparison and added time has always been way short, VAR or not.
one
RefChat Addict
Fair points. Its not all doom and gloom on the 'killing the passion and the atmosphere'. It can, in some cases, add to the drama. The non-offside goal by Koera against Germany couldn't have been scripted better for drama effect. But i do understand your point. There are many factors to consider on top of accuracy and getting the most decisions right. The business side of things and the financial impact for example.
The Committee is accountable to FIFA, so how can it be trusted? It's an integral part of FIFA's PR machine and I take umbrage with being misled by referees turned politicians. Ignoring VAR, the standard of officiating has badly regressed, despite having Collina at the helm. I don't have any faith in an organisation so commercially driven, to ever be motivated by anything other that the $
So how can we discuss improvements? I'm not sure we can
VAR sarcasm to one side for a moment!... I don't think the shirt pull was a penalty. The contact was insignificant, otherwise Griezmann would have detected it
However, both candidates for SFP were compelling. If I didn't show red for the first offence, the second rash lunge on the stroke of full time would have seen me go for the back pocket. Allowing them both to stay on the field was wrong. Shame, because the ref who I like, was probably swayed by instruction
Clear and obvious to 1 Billion footie fans that saw it on slow mo!!! What are they actually checking for????
That's the problemo with slowmo