The Video Assistant Referee (VAR)

[ozvillafan]

2 hours ago, chappy said:

What the - that man only has 3 fingers on his left hand!

[Davkaus]

1 hour ago, ozvillafan said:

What the - that man only has 3 fingers on his left hand!

His middle finger is behind the ring finger, you can see it poking out the bottom (lined up another KW there ) 

[S-Platt]

On 21/03/2022 at 13:48, bobzy said:

Sorry, but this is nonsense.  Ramsey was given offside for interfering with Cavani, which he did.  It wasn't a foul and they had various things to check at that time.  Even if it was missed initially, the correct decision was made.

Sometimes teams get decisions, sometimes they don't.  There's nothing to suggest that Liverpool would've been awarded a penalty for exactly the same situation as the Yates incident.  Absolutely nothing.  You'll also see plenty of Liverpool fans bemoaning VAR decisions against them - just like every other club (maybe with the exception of Man City).

It's just football fans being football fans.  "We" were all berating the referee during the Arsenal game for not having booked Partey early on when Mings was booked for a clean tackle.  Arsenal fans were berating the same referee for not having booked Cash after several fouls, but booking Xhaka after one.

 

If one wants to see something to fit their narrative, one can probably find it.

Nonsense OK so why was that the last thing checked it was like they were trying to find a way to chalk the goal off.  Switch the teams and they check the first thing that looks OK they then give the goal.

If you think the way it's implemented is fair to all then that's your opinion!

[Five Ken McNaughts]

In light of Jota’s goal at Forest, I have a question...

Why did VAR move heaven and Earth to find Ollie Watkins offside when he equalised against West Ham last season...

 

....when a simple check of the alternative angle (as happened for Jota’s goal) would have shown he was onside?

 

I mean, just look at the amount of real estate between Coufal and the 18-yard line compared to the Ogbonna / Watkins tussle! There’s simply no way any lines are finding an offside now. Goal stands. 2-2.

That second image was never shown by VAR or Sky (hmm...). I found it on West Ham TV’s in-house version of the highlights. So when the PGMOL tell you that VAR will always show you the “best” image for determining an offside, just remember this – they are laughing in your face.

VAR officials choose when to show that alternative angle. And they choose when to keep it a secret. And any system that has such capacity for manipulation designed into it is, in my opinion, murky as hell.

If VAR / the PGMOL actually wanted to embrace impartiality, accuracy and truth, they would use a step-by-step process to determining offsides and show every stage (like an LBW review in cricket), as opposed to including or excluding evidence on a whim.

(Spoiler Alert: it’ll never happen).

[bobzy]

22 minutes ago, Five Ken McNaughts said:

In light of Jota’s goal at Forest, I have a question...

Why did VAR move heaven and Earth to find Ollie Watkins offside when he equalised against West Ham last season...

 

....when a simple check of the alternative angle (as happened for Jota’s goal) would have shown he was onside?

 

I mean, just look at the amount of real estate between Coufal and the 18-yard line compared to the Ogbonna / Watkins tussle! There’s simply no way any lines are finding an offside now. Goal stands. 2-2.

That second image was never shown by VAR or Sky (hmm...). I found it on West Ham TV’s in-house version of the highlights. So when the PGMOL tell you that VAR will always show you the “best” image for determining an offside, just remember this – they are laughing in your face.

VAR officials choose when to show that alternative angle.

They’ve chosen the angle that more clearly shows the offside… which is the first one. The second one tricks the mind into making it look like Coufal plays Watkins on. Literally no issue there.

The travesty isn’t the angles, it’s the ridiculous comparisons between shirt sleeves. 

[Five Ken McNaughts]

27 minutes ago, bobzy said:

They’ve chosen the angle that more clearly shows the offside… which is the first one. The second one tricks the mind into making it look like Coufal plays Watkins on. Literally no issue there.

The travesty isn’t the angles, it’s the ridiculous comparisons between shirt sleeves. 

I would have to respectfully disagree with you there.

Are you saying you don’t see the improved depth and perspective offered by the second angle? The way it shows the full 18-yard box and allows you to make a more accurate judgement of players’ positions within that, and relative to each other?

The reason the Watkins example is so apt is that the two camera angles almost perfectly match the ones surrounding the Jota goal at Forest, except the opposite one was deemed the “right” one.

With that in mind, can I take it you think VAR should have drawn lines on the first angle of the Jota goal (that made him look offside) and ignored the one they ultimately used? Because that second one that showed Jota to be onside – the camera in line with the goal line – is the exact same angle you have just sad “tricks the mind” in the Watkins example.

 

[bobzy]

28 minutes ago, Five Ken McNaughts said:

I would have to respectfully disagree with you there.

Are you saying you don’t see the improved depth and perspective offered by the second angle? The way it shows the full 18-yard box and allows you to make a more accurate judgement of players’ positions within that, and relative to each other?

The reason the Watkins example is so apt is that the two camera angles almost perfectly match the ones surrounding the Jota goal at Forest, except the opposite one was deemed the “right” one.

With that in mind, can I take it you think VAR should have drawn lines on the first angle of the Jota goal (that made him look offside) and ignored the one they ultimately used? Because that second one that showed Jota to be onside – the camera in line with the goal line – is the exact same angle you have just sad “tricks the mind” in the Watkins example.

From memory, the player involved in the potential offside with Jota is next to him in the penalty area, not some distance away (Coufal).  Therefore, the bottom angle which they show (which I think is a more common TV angle and probably assessed first?  I don't know) is absolutely fine as the players are close and your mind isn't tricked as much.

If you're saying you think Watkins was onside and that Jota was offside then you're just wrong.

[a m ole]

42 minutes ago, Five Ken McNaughts said:

I would have to respectfully disagree with you there.

Are you saying you don’t see the improved depth and perspective offered by the second angle? The way it shows the full 18-yard box and allows you to make a more accurate judgement of players’ positions within that, and relative to each other?

The reason the Watkins example is so apt is that the two camera angles almost perfectly match the ones surrounding the Jota goal at Forest, except the opposite one was deemed the “right” one.

With that in mind, can I take it you think VAR should have drawn lines on the first angle of the Jota goal (that made him look offside) and ignored the one they ultimately used? Because that second one that showed Jota to be onside – the camera in line with the goal line – is the exact same angle you have just sad “tricks the mind” in the Watkins example.

 

Unfortunately, and respectfully, it doesn’t matter if you disagree, the lines on the original image are correct. Your eyes are being deceived by that second angle, it’s not subjective. 

What was wrong with that goal was Obgonna fouling Watkins into that position and it not being deemed a penalty when it was determined Watkins’ shoulder was offside.

[Five Ken McNaughts]

24 minutes ago, bobzy said:

From memory, the player involved in the potential offside with Jota is next to him in the penalty area, not some distance away (Coufal).  Therefore, the bottom angle which they show (which I think is a more common TV angle and probably assessed first?  I don't know) is absolutely fine as the players are close and your mind isn't tricked as much.

If you're saying you think Watkins was onside and that Jota was offside then you're just wrong.

The two images for the Jota goal are on p.255 of this thread.

They demonstrate rather neatly that... once the camera angle switches from around the edge of the box to the goal line... of any two given players, the one further away from the camera is revealed to be deeper lying than they originally appeared.

And, conversely, the one closest to the camera is revealed to be less deep lying than they originally appeared.

The greater the “vertical” distance between them (on the 2D screen), the greater the reversal of their positions (look, for example, what happens to the not-involved Liverpool player at the top there – on the right edge of the box – the same longitude as Coufal for the Watkins goal).

You both, @bobzy and @a m ole, appear to be saying that the camera on the goal line CAUSES my mind to be tricked for the Watkins goal, but STOPS it being tricked for the Jota goal.

My opinion is consistent – the camera on the goal line offers the most accurate view of the players’ positions. 

[Five Ken McNaughts]

On 20/03/2022 at 22:06, S-Platt said:

The first angle they show he is offside clearly so they then get another angle from behind the play to make him look on.

 

(Might be helpful if I quote @S-Platt for those images of the Jota goal from a couple of pages ago).

[a-k]

6 hours ago, Five Ken McNaughts said:

In light of Jota’s goal at Forest, I have a question...

Why did VAR move heaven and Earth to find Ollie Watkins offside when he equalised against West Ham last season...

 

....when a simple check of the alternative angle (as happened for Jota’s goal) would have shown he was onside?

 

I mean, just look at the amount of real estate between Coufal and the 18-yard line compared to the Ogbonna / Watkins tussle! There’s simply no way any lines are finding an offside now. Goal stands. 2-2.

That second image was never shown by VAR or Sky (hmm...). I found it on West Ham TV’s in-house version of the highlights. So when the PGMOL tell you that VAR will always show you the “best” image for determining an offside, just remember this – they are laughing in your face.

VAR officials choose when to show that alternative angle. And they choose when to keep it a secret. And any system that has such capacity for manipulation designed into it is, in my opinion, murky as hell.

If VAR / the PGMOL actually wanted to embrace impartiality, accuracy and truth, they would use a step-by-step process to determining offsides and show every stage (like an LBW review in cricket), as opposed to including or excluding evidence on a whim.

(Spoiler Alert: it’ll never happen).

Using simple image analysis tools, I scaled the image based on being able to see the entire 18-yard box line by Coufal. I then measured the distances from the top of the box to each respective player. The line to Ollie was longer, i.e., "offside". Now, whether that offside should have been called is a different story, but that's not what you claim. You can easily see the angle of the 18 yard box clearly differs from the angle of the 6 yard box, thus using the naked eye is not sufficient.

[a m ole]

8 hours ago, Five Ken McNaughts said:

The two images for the Jota goal are on p.255 of this thread.

They demonstrate rather neatly that... once the camera angle switches from around the edge of the box to the goal line... of any two given players, the one further away from the camera is revealed to be deeper lying than they originally appeared.

And, conversely, the one closest to the camera is revealed to be less deep lying than they originally appeared.

The greater the “vertical” distance between them (on the 2D screen), the greater the reversal of their positions (look, for example, what happens to the not-involved Liverpool player at the top there – on the right edge of the box – the same longitude as Coufal for the Watkins goal).

You both, @bobzy and @a m ole, appear to be saying that the camera on the goal line CAUSES my mind to be tricked for the Watkins goal, but STOPS it being tricked for the Jota goal.

My opinion is consistent – the camera on the goal line offers the most accurate view of the players’ positions. 

I am correct and so are the lines - my job is in analysing imagery and involves perspective - and along with that I know how the technology works to draw those lines. Your opinion might be consistent but it is incorrect.

Edited March 25, 2022 by a m ole

[S-Platt]

2 hours ago, a m ole said:

I am correct and so are the lines - my job is in analysing imagery and involves perspective - and along with that I know how the technology works to draw those lines. Your opinion might be consistent but it is incorrect.

Fair enough so can you guarantee the guy in Stockley Park is pressing the pause button at the 1/100th of second the ball leaves the passers foot?  Would you agree that images can be shown that support 2 different outcomes depending on what they want to happen and when an image is paused to draw lines?  

If a decision is that tight then how can they be so sure with the current technology?   It used to favour attacking play but now that only applies to certain teams in certain situations.

[a m ole]

1 hour ago, S-Platt said:

Fair enough so can you guarantee the guy in Stockley Park is pressing the pause button at the 1/100th of second the ball leaves the passers foot?  Would you agree that images can be shown that support 2 different outcomes depending on what they want to happen and when an image is paused to draw lines?  

If a decision is that tight then how can they be so sure with the current technology?   It used to favour attacking play but now that only applies to certain teams in certain situations.

None of that is what I’m arguing against, except the angle of the lines has nothing to do with the camera angle the audience sees.

Edited March 25, 2022 by a m ole

[Five Ken McNaughts]

5 hours ago, a m ole said:

I am correct and so are the lines - my job is in analysing imagery and involves perspective - and along with that I know how the technology works to draw those lines. Your opinion might be consistent but it is incorrect.

I’ll stick to my opinion that the goal-line camera gives the truest view of offsides in the box and should be the go-to option when applying lines. I’ll also stick to my opinion that it shouldn’t be sometimes shown / sometimes ignored. Yes, my opinions on those things are consistent. 

[Five Ken McNaughts]

9 hours ago, a-k said:

Using simple image analysis tools, I scaled the image based on being able to see the entire 18-yard box line by Coufal. I then measured the distances from the top of the box to each respective player. The line to Ollie was longer, i.e., "offside". Now, whether that offside should have been called is a different story, but that's not what you claim. You can easily see the angle of the 18 yard box clearly differs from the angle of the 6 yard box, thus using the naked eye is not sufficient.

Would you be able to post a screenshot? 

[Stevo985]

18 hours ago, Five Ken McNaughts said:

In light of Jota’s goal at Forest, I have a question...

Why did VAR move heaven and Earth to find Ollie Watkins offside when he equalised against West Ham last season...

 

....when a simple check of the alternative angle (as happened for Jota’s goal) would have shown he was onside?

 

I mean, just look at the amount of real estate between Coufal and the 18-yard line compared to the Ogbonna / Watkins tussle! There’s simply no way any lines are finding an offside now. Goal stands. 2-2.

That second image was never shown by VAR or Sky (hmm...). I found it on West Ham TV’s in-house version of the highlights. So when the PGMOL tell you that VAR will always show you the “best” image for determining an offside, just remember this – they are laughing in your face.

VAR officials choose when to show that alternative angle. And they choose when to keep it a secret. And any system that has such capacity for manipulation designed into it is, in my opinion, murky as hell.

If VAR / the PGMOL actually wanted to embrace impartiality, accuracy and truth, they would use a step-by-step process to determining offsides and show every stage (like an LBW review in cricket), as opposed to including or excluding evidence on a whim.

(Spoiler Alert: it’ll never happen).

I think you fundamentally don’t understand how offsides work on VAR. Both pictures would give the same outcome. But to the eye one looks off and one doesnt

[Stevo985]

16 hours ago, Five Ken McNaughts said:

The two images for the Jota goal are on p.255 of this thread.

They demonstrate rather neatly that... once the camera angle switches from around the edge of the box to the goal line... of any two given players, the one further away from the camera is revealed to be deeper lying than they originally appeared.

And, conversely, the one closest to the camera is revealed to be less deep lying than they originally appeared.

The greater the “vertical” distance between them (on the 2D screen), the greater the reversal of their positions (look, for example, what happens to the not-involved Liverpool player at the top there – on the right edge of the box – the same longitude as Coufal for the Watkins goal).

You both, @bobzy and @a m ole, appear to be saying that the camera on the goal line CAUSES my mind to be tricked for the Watkins goal, but STOPS it being tricked for the Jota goal.

My opinion is consistent – the camera on the goal line offers the most accurate view of the players’ positions. 

[Dodgyknees]

On 22/03/2022 at 11:04, ozvillafan said:

What the - that man only has 3 fingers on his left hand!

The three knuckle shuffle 

[bobzy]

Almeria vs Girona in Spain, 86th min penalty for Almeria who are losing 0-1.  Saved by the keeper and the follow up was tucked against the post in a genuinely ridiculous miss... but then VAR rules the penalty is to be retaken due to encroachment - the guy following up was the one who encroached

Retaken penalty.  Blazed over.  Ridiculous few minutes.

 

But honestly, that VAR decision