The Video Assistant Referee (VAR)

[MrBlack]

8 hours ago, bobzy said:

The thing I don't understand is why the default TV camera angle is the one used when showing offsides.  They have cameras absolutely **** everywhere in a ground - they can zoom in and out and flip things round when reviewing whether a ball has crossed the line... why isn't that sort of camera used to show the offside decisions?

It's all a bit baffling.

Because then they can't deliberately favour whichever team they want to win.

[turvontour]

I know this isnt important, but why is Watkins goal awarded, added to the scoreline, players lined up to take kick off etc. And then its removed. Why isnt it goal pending? 

[Mantis]

36 minutes ago, turvontour said:

I know this isnt important, but why is Watkins goal awarded, added to the scoreline, players lined up to take kick off etc. And then its removed. Why isnt it goal pending? 

Probably just easier to count the goal by default and then they can decide whether they want to rule it out for whatever dodgy reason, rather than having every goal as goal pending.

[The_Steve]

On 13/02/2022 at 17:56, Mantis said:

The thing that's most irritating is this whole "taking 4 minutes to chalk off a goal" thing. That's not what it's supposed to be for. It's being used to manipulate the outcome of games.

Equally. Why wasn’t the Newcastle goal reviewed for as long? Wood was in an illegal position. The only conclusion one can make is that it’s a rigged game. 

[Tommo_b]

Anyone else find Dermot Gallaghers reviews(defence) of Var decisions really irritating?

[imavillan]

35 minutes ago, Tommo_b said:

Anyone else find Dermot Gallaghers reviews(defence) of Var decisions really irritating?

He’s an irritating cockwomble, full stop. 

[Zatman]

4 hours ago, Tommo_b said:

Anyone else find Dermot Gallaghers reviews(defence) of Var decisions really irritating?

I actually like him as a interviewee on Irish radio its where he is from and a bit more honest

Sky have him being a yes man its like most SKY pundits. Souness is another great pundit when he is not given a script

[Keyblade]

On 13/02/2022 at 11:30, Villaphan04 said:

I don't have an issue with them calling offsides. He either is, or he isn't. My gripe is that it took like 3/4 minutes to draw the offsides lines. that, to me, signals that they are looking for just something to overturn. 

Compare that to when United recently scored a last minute borderline offside winner at Old Trafford and the check was instantaneous. I remember being chewed out on here for suggesting that was a tad odd

[Stevo985]

On 14/02/2022 at 12:21, bobzy said:

The thing I don't understand is why the default TV camera angle is the one used when showing offsides.  They have cameras absolutely **** everywhere in a ground - they can zoom in and out and flip things round when reviewing whether a ball has crossed the line... why isn't that sort of camera used to show the offside decisions?

It's all a bit baffling.

Goalline technology is hawkeye. It's not cameras they're flipping round and zooming in, it's a virtual image. It's all carefully calibrated according to the goalline. That system wouldn't work for offsides as it's too dynamic. 

Someone posted earlier the offside version of that which is being trialled which would effectively give you what you're talking about. But the current tech can't do that.

I do agree that better cameras would help though. A couple on the touchline closer to each goalline would give a far better image with less of an angle

[Stevo985]

On 15/02/2022 at 12:46, turvontour said:

I know this isnt important, but why is Watkins goal awarded, added to the scoreline, players lined up to take kick off etc. And then its removed. Why isnt it goal pending? 

Presumably it's due to the decision made on the field.

Watkins goal wasn't ruled out by the linesman, therefore technically the goal has been given until VAR proves otherwise.

If the linesman had put his flag up then it would be a goal pending because it hasn't been given until VAR says it has.

 

That's all guesswork though

[Demitri_C]

I still dont undertsand how goals like Watkins is a clear and obvious error?

Its so minimal its killing the game

[bobzy]

30 minutes ago, Stevo985 said:

Goalline technology is hawkeye. It's not cameras they're flipping round and zooming in, it's a virtual image. It's all carefully calibrated according to the goalline. That system wouldn't work for offsides as it's too dynamic. 

Someone posted earlier the offside version of that which is being trialled which would effectively give you what you're talking about. But the current tech can't do that.

I do agree that better cameras would help though. A couple on the touchline closer to each goalline would give a far better image with less of an angle

I’m not talking about goal line technology. Look at the Nyland “ghost goal” incident. The technology failed but we had about a billion different angles shown to us to prove that the ball had crossed the line.

There are a ridiculous number of cameras at Premier League games. It can’t be difficult to show a straight-line angle with offsides, it just can’t be. 

[Stevo985]

12 minutes ago, Demitri_C said:

I still dont undertsand how goals like Watkins is a clear and obvious error?

Its so minimal its killing the game

Because "Clear and Obvious" is a stupid phrase.

A linesman giving a goal that is actually offside is a clear and obvious error, no matter how small the margins are. 

 

In the same way if the ball is an inch over the goalline, not giving the goal would be an obvious error even though the margins are tiny.

 

It's just a stupid phrase that they should have never introduced. It's just confusing

[Demitri_C]

44 minutes ago, Stevo985 said:

Because "Clear and Obvious" is a stupid phrase.

A linesman giving a goal that is actually offside is a clear and obvious error, no matter how small the margins are. 

 

In the same way if the ball is an inch over the goalline, not giving the goal would be an obvious error even though the margins are tiny.

 

It's just a stupid phrase that they should have never introduced. It's just confusing

I agree it is a stupid term they need to be more clearer with what this means as they dont seem to know themselves.

But in watkins case was it clear? Was it even offside? Just seems to me the whole VAR does not have consistent decision making. Like the ramsey goal against utd. They intially looked at one instance, decided they cant disallow it so looked at two other instances to get it chalked off.

Never seen that before. Also var didnt even look at the foul whoch led to newcastles freekick. 

There just absolutely no consistency with var thats why i cant stand it. I would rather human error than this shite.

[fightoffyour]

29 minutes ago, Demitri_C said:

I agree it is a stupid term they need to be more clearer with what this means as they dont seem to know themselves.

But in watkins case was it clear? Was it even offside? Just seems to me the whole VAR does not have consistent decision making. Like the ramsey goal against utd. They intially looked at one instance, decided they cant disallow it so looked at two other instances to get it chalked off.

Never seen that before. Also var didnt even look at the foul whoch led to newcastles freekick. 

There just absolutely no consistency with var thats why i cant stand it. I would rather human error than this shite.

I think Stevo's point is that, at least in theory, offside (like the ball crossing the line) is a black and white / binary decision. There is a definitive description of offside in the rules and so someone either is or they aren't, and therefore any incorrect offside decision, even by 0.01mm, is effectively a clear and obvious error. We're not talking here about just eyeing it and saying "that's clearly wrong".

The problem is that the technology doesn't exist to make that binary decision for offside, whereas it does (within some margin of error and barring a Nyland malfunction) for goal line decisions.

[Stevo985]

46 minutes ago, Demitri_C said:

I agree it is a stupid term they need to be more clearer with what this means as they dont seem to know themselves.

But in watkins case was it clear? Was it even offside? Just seems to me the whole VAR does not have consistent decision making. Like the ramsey goal against utd. They intially looked at one instance, decided they cant disallow it so looked at two other instances to get it chalked off.

Never seen that before. Also var didnt even look at the foul whoch led to newcastles freekick. 

There just absolutely no consistency with var thats why i cant stand it. I would rather human error than this shite.

It doesn't need to be clear. That's my point.

Offsides can be mesaured to tiny amounts. So if the technology says he's offside, even by a mm, but the linesman hasn't given it, then that IS a clear an dobvious error.

And VAR absolutely did look at the Newcastle free kick. it was given as a penalty and VAR reviewed it to convert it to a free kick. Which is again another example. That's a matter of inches. But because VAR can look at it in that detail then that is a clear error from the referee

[turvontour]

4 hours ago, Stevo985 said:

Presumably it's due to the decision made on the field.

Watkins goal wasn't ruled out by the linesman, therefore technically the goal has been given until VAR proves otherwise.

If the linesman had put his flag up then it would be a goal pending because it hasn't been given until VAR says it has.

 

That's all guesswork though

Youre right. Theres something though that nags with me about being able to award a goal and then take it away. Everyone watching that goal knew it was 50 50 if it was going to be given. You could see it in Watkins reaction. I suppose it takes away from the drama, tv commentary etc if they were to say, " this could be a goal, we'll know in a few minutes, dont go away".

The linesman are just pointless in all of it now arent they. In ten years, we will be saying "we used to have a guy with a flag trying to judge if it was offside or not".

[Stevo985]

7 minutes ago, turvontour said:

Youre right. Theres something though that nags with me about being able to award a goal and then take it away. Everyone watching that goal knew it was 50 50 if it was going to be given. You could see it in Watkins reaction. I suppose it takes away from the drama, tv commentary etc if they were to say, " this could be a goal, we'll know in a few minutes, dont go away".

The linesman are just pointless in all of it now arent they. In ten years, we will be saying "we used to have a guy with a flag trying to judge if it was offside or not".

Well as someone posted earlier in the thread, automated offside is being developed. If that's successful then you'd imagine the linesmen will become defunct, or at least as we know them. I guess they'd still have the line calls to make but it's not a lot of responsibility. 

[Genie]

5 minutes ago, Stevo985 said:

Well as someone posted earlier in the thread, automated offside is being developed. If that's successful then you'd imagine the linesmen will become defunct, or at least as we know them. I guess they'd still have the line calls to make but it's not a lot of responsibility. 

There will then be the questions about being in an off offside position but being “inactive” in the play. 

[bannedfromHandV]

It’s still shit, it’s still corrupt, it’s still not adding anything good to the game and it’s still affecting goal celebrations.