UEFA Part 2

[PinnerPaul]

Another interesting watch. Reinforced the view that VAR IS checking 'normal' play leading to goals I thought, from what we heard from the officials during the games.

Sports psychologist was an interesting figure to include even though much of what he said was pretty obvious/heard before.

The most heart-breaking/fair play to you part was the story from the referee who heard, during half time of a Nations League match that his mother had passed away.

Head of refereeing obviously told him it was up to him if he carried on, and he decided to do the 2nd half - at the end of the game he was in tears - he said himself still not sure if it was right or if he would do the same again, but well done that man - that can't have been easy - understatement of the year!

 

[socal lurker]

Another interesting watch. Reinforced the view that VAR IS checking 'normal' play leading to goals I thought, from what we heard from the officials during the games.

What do you mean by "normal" plays? VAR is supposed to check for any clear errors in the attacking phase of play that leads to a goal or PK.

 

[santa sangria]

I’ve read his book. I tried to post about it here as I thought loads of the logic was flawed.

His contribution to the show was good.

But I’m finding the shows really dull. They could squeeze the interesting bits into 8 minutes.

Is it working as an attempt to glamorize refereeing, maybe, but it’s a slog for me!

 

[es1]

I’ve read his book. I tried to post about it here as I thought loads of the logic was flawed.

His contribution to the show was good.

But I’m finding the shows really dull. They could squeeze the interesting bits into 8 minutes.

Is it working as an attempt to glamorize refereeing, maybe, but it’s a slog for me!

yeah there's a lot of fluffy nothingness around some very small amounts of good content.

i'd like to see more of the training sessions (classroom and field) and more on the pitch interactions with ARs and VAR

 

[onthebrink]

yeah there's a lot of fluffy nothingness around some very small amounts of good content.

i'd like to see more of the training sessions (classroom and field) and more on the pitch interactions with ARs and VAR

Yes, I'd agree with that. I guess it is trying to appeal to a general/casual audience but not sure we need to see so many highlights of the general game and so on.
It would be interesting to hear a bit more comment on how the officials are assessed and discussion of how handball is judged or their tolerance level for Clear and Obvious with VAR. It feels it could go into a bit more depth.

 

[PinnerPaul]

What do you mean by "normal" plays? VAR is supposed to check for any clear errors in the attacking phase of play that leads to a goal or PK.

Sorry poor English on my part. I suppose I meant a phase of play that contains no obvious errors to the naked eyes of the referee, assistants or players.

 

[PinnerPaul]

One further point that might be worthy of discussion. The sports psychologist said that we make about 350 decisions in a 90' match, of which 50 of those were 'objective'.

My feeble brain is struggling with the 50 'objective' decisions per match - even 'obvious' calls are still subjective aren't they?

 

[santa sangria]

One further point that might be worthy of discussion. The sports psychologist said that we make about 350 decisions in a 90' match, of which 50 of those were 'objective'.

My feeble brain is struggling with the 50 'objective' decisions per match - even 'obvious' calls are still subjective aren't they?

IMHO if you get the book - which is worth a read - a lot of the numbers just don't add up.

In UEFA2 he riffed on the home/away decision-making and that one something I thought had totally flawed methodology and results in the book.

No spoilers though - get the book - because there's nothing else like it - and make up your own mind.

(Weirdly I also thought Soccernomics was also a total turkey, mostly because I found it incredibly dull, but also because, well... lies, lies and damned statistics)

 

[socal lurker]

My feeble brain is struggling with the 50 'objective' decisions per match - even 'obvious' calls are still subjective aren't they?

Whether a ball crosses a line and who touched last are objective. Whether a ball makes contact with an arm is objective (but whether it constitutes a handball is subjective). OSP is objective (but whether there was interference with an opponent is subjective).

 

[PinnerPaul]

If ALL in/out are objective as you say (and I don't agree btw) then it would be far higher than 50 out of 350 in a match?

Can't agree with those criteria sorry and if you were right the number of objective decisions would be far higher.

Having said that a referee (and stats were for professional games I think) doesn't decide OSP so those decisions can't be in the 350.

If two players challenge for the ball and it goes out of play, you have to make a subjective decision surely - now someone else with a replay might be able to make the 'correct' or 'definitive' decision but it doesn't make the initial one with the naked eye objective.

It WAS a long time since I did my English A level though!

 

[socal lurker]

I disagree. There is an objectively correct answer to who touched it last. One of the players did. There is no opinion (I.e. subjectivity) involved. I suspect that the completely obvious ones aren’t being considered as “decisions.”

 

[PinnerPaul]

I disagree. There is an objectively correct answer to who touched it last. One of the players did. There is no opinion (I.e. subjectivity) involved. I suspect that the completely obvious ones aren’t being considered as “decisions.”

There IS an objectively correct answer but we're making a subjective decision - ie who made that last touch?

If the completely obvious ones (the majority) are not included then I'm struggling with the 350 number tbh.

 

[Jtpetherick1]

There IS an objectively correct answer but we're making a subjective decision - ie who made that last touch?

If the completely obvious ones (the majority) are not included then I'm struggling with the 350 number tbh.

That's not how it works. Did I just have a sandwich? You may not know so are making a decision based on the crumbs in my lap but there is still a correct answer. It's objective.

 

[onthebrink]

Yes, subjective is an opinion, objective is a fact.

There might still be judgement involved with an objective situation which means it is not called accurately but it is 100% black and white.

 

[AlexF]

In UEFA2 he riffed on the home/away decision-making and that one something I thought had totally flawed methodology and results in the book.

This is an interesting one, and at least three studies have been done on it over the years, one of which had a follow-up using the Champions League games this summer as a series of high level games with no fans.

The one I recall best came out of Germany and they found a decently significant bias in games with "home" fans. I can't recall the precise numbers, but it was between 55 and 60% of fouls (including advantages) were given in favour of the home team.

They also looked at neutral venues, but didn't have nearly the volume of games, and found that they were much closer to an even 50-50 split (there was a slight, but statistically insignificant home bias).

The follow-up study done this summer was from (I think) a French group and found that the numbers were almost exactly 50-50 in terms of fouls given in venues with no fans.

To my mind, that last points more towards a home bias, and something that referees have to learn how to overcome.

 

[PinnerPaul]

Yes, subjective is an opinion, objective is a fact.

There might still be judgement involved with an objective situation which means it is not called accurately but it is 100% black and white.

I hear what you all say, but if you're correct then the 50/300 split quoted in the programme can't possibly be correct.

More likely they have used my criteria rather than yours - whichever way you look at it - 350 is still a lot!

 

[GraemeS]

I hear what you all say, but if you're correct then the 50/300 split quoted in the programme can't possibly be correct.

More likely they have used my criteria rather than yours - whichever way you look at it - 350 is still a lot!

It is, roughly 4 decisions per minute - and that's assuming things are actively happening for 90 minutes, given there's a lot of dead air where the ball is either out or being passed around a defence, it's probably a lot higher in reality. You do have to remember though that some of those decisions will be a "no foul" or "it didn't go out of play" decision, which doesn't look like the referee is actually doing anything.

 

[santa sangria]

One thing I forgot was really good in #2, they riffed on ”referees really love football.”

We should shout that from the rooftops. We are basically the ultimate fans and it would help if other more partisan fans computed that