A&H

VAR Farce

Given that VAR is only getting involved in the tricky ones, let's assume that they should be achieving 95% accuracy? Which means that about 1 in 20 times, the VAR will make the wrong recommendation. And by refusing to use the screens, that error has no chance of being caught.

But VAR isn't supposed to be only getting involved in the "tricky ones"--it's supposed to be fixing clear errors.

But I agree that it should be rare that a VAR says there was a clear error and the R sticks with the call. (We saw it a few times in the WC.)
 
The Referee Store
Really? I think you might have some rose-tinted glasses on personally, VAR only happened because of the incredible amount of fuss we used to get over every decision.

BUT as I said above we're STILL getting an 'incredible amount of fuss' over every decision with the added 'bonuses' of

a) the delay to the game
b) The paying spectators not having a clue what's going on

IMHO the 'game' is chasing the impossible dream - no 'wrong' decisions. Its never going to happen and the 'solutions' = "Give it more time" or use the monitor are not going to make any difference at all.
 
It does happen (I'm sure I can find examples if you really want, but for now let's just trust my memory!), but the system is literally set up so that it happens as rarely as possible. Clear and obvious, doubt with the on-field decision etc, all designed so that if the referee is told he should take a look at the screen, it should only be because it's wrong.

BUT. If we take FIFA's own stats at face value, 99% of on field decisions are correct. Given that VAR is only getting involved in the tricky ones, let's assume that they should be achieving 95% accuracy? Which means that about 1 in 20 times, the VAR will make the wrong recommendation. And by refusing to use the screens, that error has no chance of being caught.

Happened here yesterday https://streamable.com/1adoe
 
I'm interested to know what people think about the Arsenal decision. I think they got it technically correct. Chambers stepped on a foot. Why isn't that a foul?

I agree he was pushed. If you look for advantage to accrue and the reason it doesn't is that the attacking player commits a foul do you go back and give the original one? I don't think so.

I'm an Arsenal fan.

Chambers was crowded out by 3 players, each of them fouling him in one way or another. A push, a trip and then Cahill goes WWE and body slams him when he was on the floor.

Anywhere else on the pitch, Chambers is getting a free kick.
 
Here's my prediction
The mounting pressure will result in the OFR featuring in the EPL
We'll then be disagreeing with, bewildered by and outraged via subjective decisions made using OFR. With the added delay incurred

Ultimately, I think we're discovering (via full circle) that the best way of judging subjective decisions, is in that moment of time in which the on-field referee makes a call to the best of his or her ability (and everyone is [more] accepting of the inherent difficulty and human error)
I'd don't actually mind the non use of OFR. But hiding the screen away is not a good idea. I should be available and used when needed as per described in 'the protocol'.
 
Hiding the screen is like the band continuing playing on the Titanic and refusing to believe that it’s been holed and sinking. Just carry on like nothing happened chaps and it will all be ok chaps, it’s just a scratch! 😬
 
Some more controversy this weekend with an offside call against Liverpool.

Twitter is blowing up over Atkinson redrawing the lines three times (two = onside, last one = offside).

I know offside is a black and white thing, but I think this decision was silly. From the images and the video I honestly don't know how it is meant to be spotted in real time and I'm not entirely sure we're meant to fiddle with the lines so that a player's armpit is offside? I don't think anyone would have complained had he just said no offside in this scenario, and this is an example of VAR being controversial for the sake of it IMO.
 
Some more controversy this weekend with an offside call against Liverpool.

Twitter is blowing up over Atkinson redrawing the lines three times (two = onside, last one = offside).

I know offside is a black and white thing, but I think this decision was silly. From the images and the video I honestly don't know how it is meant to be spotted in real time and I'm not entirely sure we're meant to fiddle with the lines so that a player's armpit is offside? I don't think anyone would have complained had he just said no offside in this scenario, and this is an example of VAR being controversial for the sake of it IMO.
The thing that I've not seen pundits mention is that the on field decision was actually offside (albeit delayed so the flag didn't go up until after the ball hit the net.

Again, we've run into a fundamental problem with how the procedure for VAR has been written, and one that really stands out once you've watched some rugby using their equivalent. It's entirely possible that Atkinson drew the lines 3 times, decided he couldn't be sure and so recommended that thy stick with the on-field decision. And that would make total sense to me. But because we're not able to listen to that conversation, we don't know what actually happened. And so in this world where the VAR makes the decision rather than recommending a OFR, it looks like VAR disallowed the goal based on the flimsiest of evidence.

And the ridiculous explanation supplied by the Premier League unfortunately makes it sound much more like the latter than the former:

 
  • Like
Reactions: one
What's missing here for factual decisions is the option for VAR to say "on Field decision stands" meaning too close for VAR to make a ruling.

Agree with @GraemeS. I think VAR 'forced' the technology to support the on Feld decision rather than the technology drawing that conclusion on its own. This was the first attempt which shows onside. Not my drawing, it was fed live to broadcasters.
Screenshot_20191103-104934__01__01.jpg
 
What's missing here for factual decisions is the option for VAR to say "on Field decision stands" meaning too close for VAR to make a ruling.

Agree with @GraemeS. I think VAR 'forced' the technology to support the on Feld decision rather than the technology drawing that conclusion on its own. This was the first attempt which shows onside. Not my drawing, it was fed live to broadcasters.
View attachment 3806
Penalty to Liverpool, all day long 😂
 
We recently talked about humility by referees, admitting mistakes and gaining respect. Looks like EPL is going the opposite way on this.

On a related matter, I wonder how EPL picks / trains VAR. Being a good referee doesn't necessarily mean being a good VAR. For starters two main pillars of being a good referee at that level, game management and fitness, are not required as a VAR. On the other hand being good with technology is Not something a good referee needs but is a must for VAR.
 
We recently talked about humility by referees, admitting mistakes and gaining respect. Looks like EPL is going the opposite way on this.

On a related matter, I wonder how EPL picks / trains VAR. Being a good referee doesn't necessarily mean being a good VAR. For starters two main pillars of being a good referee at that level, game management and fitness, are not required as a VAR. On the other hand being good with technology is Not something a good referee needs but is a must for VAR.
Pressing a big button and talking on comms?

They have an operator that does all the camera work, anyone could work the VAR system after being told what to do.
 
Pressing a big button and talking on comms?

They have an operator that does all the camera work, anyone could work the VAR system after being told what to do.

Yes, that is a common misconception. Neither VAR or AVAR operate the controls, they just tell the operator next to them what they want to see.
 
Pressing a big button and talking on comms?

They have an operator that does all the camera work, anyone could work the VAR system after being told what to do.
Not quite. I know the video operator is not a 'referee'. I am talking about the person who operates 'the lines'. And that person(s) is either VAR or works under his instructions. In this case, he/she is either not savvy enough or is deliberately (instructed to) force a favourable result. Bear with me as a bit of 3D imaging, algebra (x-y-z axis) is involved. Some of this may not make sense. Perhaps @RefJef can explain it better.

The image I posted in post #111 and the image they based the decision on got me thinking. He can't be onside and offside at the same time. One image must have incorrect line drawing. And it comes down to how far the red line (X axis) is continued down from the 'armpit'. In other words where do you draw the horizontal line parallel to sideline (Y axis) to meet the red vertical* line. Once you have that right then you draw the line parallel to goal line (Z axis) to determine offside. The answer is, the horizontal line should be drawn where the locations of the 'armpit' directly projects on the ground, in this case somewhere close to Firmino's right foot. I have added three images here to demonstrate incorrect/misapplication of technology lead to a wrong decision.

* Camera angle means Y axis is not always vertical.

This Looks to be the correct horizontal line on the ground next to Firmino's right foot (shown by broad cast in the first attempt)
screenshot_20191103-104934__01__01-jpg.3806


Looks to be incorrect horizontal line on the ground about a yard closer to the near side line than it should be (shown by broad cast in the second attempt, I included the horizontal line)
1572786738678.png

Very incorrect horizontal line on the ground about two yards closer to the near side line than it should be. I did this to demonstrate how the operator can manipulate the lines to make an onside look offside. In this case by a foot.
1572787197513.png
 
  • Like
Reactions: JH
Not quite. I know the video operator is not a 'referee'. I am talking about the person who operates 'the lines'. And that person(s) is either VAR or works under his instructions. In this case, he/she is either not savvy enough or is deliberately (instructed to) force a favourable result. Bear with me as a bit of 3D imaging, algebra (x-y-z axis) is involved. Some of this may not make sense. Perhaps @RefJef can explain it better.

The image I posted in post #111 and the image they based the decision on got me thinking. He can't be onside and offside at the same time. One image must have incorrect line drawing. And it comes down to how far the red line (X axis) is continued down from the 'armpit'. In other words where do you draw the horizontal line parallel to sideline (Y axis) to meet the red vertical* line. Once you have that right then you draw the line parallel to goal line (Z axis) to determine offside. The answer is, the horizontal line should be drawn where the locations of the 'armpit' directly projects on the ground, in this case somewhere close to Firmino's right foot. I have added three images here to demonstrate incorrect/misapplication of technology lead to a wrong decision.

* Camera angle means Y axis is not always vertical.

This Looks to be the correct horizontal line on the ground next to Firmino's right foot (shown by broad cast in the first attempt)
screenshot_20191103-104934__01__01-jpg.3806


Looks to be incorrect horizontal line on the ground about a yard closer to the near side line than it should be (shown by broad cast in the second attempt, I included the horizontal line)
View attachment 3808

Very incorrect horizontal line on the ground about two yards closer to the near side line than it should be. I did this to demonstrate how the operator can manipulate the lines to make an onside look offside. In this case by a foot.
View attachment 3809
I guess I thought the technology was much better than it is. How much did it probably cost to design and install a system that can be effortlessly manipulated to give either outcome?
 
I guess I thought the technology was much better than it is. How much did it probably cost to design and install a system that can be effortlessly manipulated to give either outcome?
A chain is as weak as its weakest link. Assuming this case was not done deliberately (also assuming I am right in my algebraic argument), then the tech operator/instructor was the problem here and that is the point I was trying to make.
 
Back
Top