VAR

[chrisw1]

Factual or mainly factual? Delays to games or not? Sorry, I can't remember what the difference was in the world cup, but if VAR can't give me an instant, factual response, I'll take the ref and a game that makes me feel as much as possible.

Well take a look at google.  It was almost instant and it's computerised, so yeah, factual.

[Simon Page]

Factual or mainly factual? Delays to games or not? Sorry, I can't remember what the difference was in the world cup, but if VAR can't give me an instant, factual response, I'll take the ref and a game that makes me feel as much as possible.

Well take a look at google.  It was almost instant and it's computerised, so yeah, factual.

Easy tiger.

What am I looking at on Google?

I was trying to get if you were talking about 100% accuracy because you said: "Because offside can and should be a factual non emotional decision," then followed it up with: "The semi-automated can give as close to factually correct decisions as we'll ever get."

I'm not trying to catch you out - or change your mind - but I really don't know what wonders tech can currently bring.

[Somniloquism]

https://www.skysports.com/watch/video/sports/football/12643581/explained-how-exactly-will-semi-automated-offside-work

[simboy]

One we have semi automated offside it will sort all of this out. The fact we haven't is a joke. 

I'd be all for having GPS tags in the back of the players shirts so there's no sleeve / toe nonsense either.  But I appreciate that would give a slightly different dynamic to offside which isn't replicable down the pyramid.

Why do we insist on taking so much fun, uncertainty and craziness out of football. This idea that we must use technology because it's there is making the game less enjoyable. The logical conclusion is AI refs and robot wars. Football is meant to be enjoyable, fun, unpredictable, infuriating, emotional. It's not a science project.

Money.

How, and for who?

the people who run the game.

VAR came in partly as a reaction of TV over-analysing every decision, from handball to offside to "penalty decisions" and all points in between.

There were hours upon hours upon hours of Lineker, Shearer and the like across the game and continents analysing, drawing lines, slo-mo's on tackles and where the ball hit the arm. It partly came in because other sports - Rugby and Cricket spring immediately  to mind, but tennis, horse racing and American sports - operate the system well on the whole. it is mainly used for line decisions and foul play missed by the officials. It involves the crowd, disputed decisions being part of the "entertainment".

UEFA and FIFA as well as the big leagues needed to show that it wasn't a crooked cabal running the sport or that their officials weren't incompetent. The Prem prides itself for example on being the "best league in the world ... ignore the fact that it has been won by one team for five out of the six years... it needed the self justification of VAR to stop it being criticised, to demonstrate that it was a "clean" product. Advertisers want to be associated with honest clean products. Similarly UEFA and FIFA.

The World Cup "offsides" were mainly quite quick decisions and the game got on with. I understand that's because FIFA used a ball with a micro-chip in. However, UEFA [or the Prem] have a different ball sponsor so that technology cannot be used in the English game.

VAR if used properly by officials who can make quick decisions with the aid of other supporting technology can work. Also, I do not get why i as a paying punter at the game have to be excluded from the decision process. Are 40,000 at Villa Park any less intimidating than 62,500 Boks at Ellis Park for example? I doubt it.

   
 

[DeKuip]

I know I celebrated Matty Cash’s goal at Boro a lot more crazily knowing VAR couldn’t pick through looking for a reason to spoil the fun. League games, no matter how good the goal, my celebration dies out after the initial jump as I try and think why it might be disallowed.. then see the ref standing still holding his ear and the ground goes silent.
Sadly it’s here to spoil our game evermore, no matter how much we moan - probably with dramatic sounds and lights like a tv quiz show while we await decisions.

[chrisw1]

I wasn't biting I was saying take a look.  It was used in the World Cup and is used in Europe now.  It's infinitely better than the lines malarkey we're relying on now.  Why the PL clubs voted against it for this season is beyond me.

Personally, I'd prefer a single chip in the shirt giving a single reference point and it's irrelevant where the limbs are, but that's a slightly different discussion.

here you go
https://www.fifa.com/technical/football-technology/football-technologies-and-innovations-at-the-fifa-world-cup-2022/semi-automated-offside-technology

[chrisw1]

Now I appreciate that level of accuracy brings in the issue of incredibly marginal decisions.  But at least they are correct and entirely unbiased.

[Simon Page]

I get all that simboy and agree with all except the need to show it wasn't a crooked cabal. That is far more to do with bribes for hosting tournaments than whether Michael Owen had strayed offside. But I don't see how any of that equates to money being the reason.

[Somniloquism]

Now I appreciate that level of accuracy brings in the issue of incredibly marginal decisions.  But at least they are correct and entirely unbiased.

Although the decision lines can still be changed by the VAR officials if they decided to be biased in some way.

[LeeB]

As someone who works in technology, I'm always amused at people who think technology will solve problems.

[chrisw1]

Now I appreciate that level of accuracy brings in the issue of incredibly marginal decisions.  But at least they are correct and entirely unbiased.

Although the decision lines can still be changed by the VAR officials if they decided to be biased in some way.

There's no lines with the automated tech, so they can't be adjusted manually.

[Brend'Watkins]

Now I appreciate that level of accuracy brings in the issue of incredibly marginal decisions.  But at least they are correct and entirely unbiased.

Although the decision lines can still be changed by the VAR officials if they decided to be biased in some way.

There's no lines with the automated tech, so they can't be adjusted manually.

Good point.  So whether right or wrong it's what we go with...a bit like a ref and linesman only more accurate for a bigger percentage of the calls.  It can't be manipulated by a biased official in other words. The only thing to worry about then is if the tech has a 'moment' like a cash machine spewing out £50 notes for no apparent reason.

[spartacuss]

I would have more belief in VAR if it allowed greater scrutiny of sustained attempts to wind up certain players with punches, elbows etc - off the ball as well as on.  It was clear to me that the Everton full-backs must have been on a bonus to see who could get Duran to respond and explode in the face of their sly thuggery.

[Toronto Villa]

We’ve probably benefitted from VAR more than most clubs given we catch sides offside with our line so often. So there is value to it. It’s that now the people paid to make these decisions are taking an eternity to find ways to disallow goals and not give them. That seems to be their starting point. There needs to be clock introduced and the onfield decision needs to be the one that has to be clearly and obviously wrong to overturn. Also handball needs to be intentional not incidental. We may have to adjust our high line a bit or be even more precise but the game overall benefits. Right now VAR is absolutely killing it.

[baddowvillans]

I'm only seeing a couple of shots of that Luton goal on Sky highlights. Hard to see the forward look deliberately on where Trafford is but a major difference is the ball was falling directly where the Sheffield Keeper was and because Ramsey had his arm "hooked" he couldn't get to it, where in the Burnley match it actually looked like Trafford also misjudged the ball and was actually under it anyway so I don't know if he would have tipped it away from the attackers head

I guess that just highlights the question of differences of interpretation.  The player clearly moves away from the flight of the ball and into the space Trafford is moving to.  If the Luton player stands his ground no problem but he moves towards him (and away from the ball) so its a foul. 

For what it's worth Dermot Gallagher thought foul but says its up to the onfield referee to decide.  Without being asked to look at the screen he's not going to change his mind so again one of those VAR black holes