The Video Assistant Referee (VAR)

[Davkaus]

Personally, and I know we'll disagree on this after our brief exchange on offside last night, I'd have no slow motion or freezeframing at all. The best VAR for me would be simple replays used solely to overturn refs making a genuine howler, not trying to achieve absolute perfection.

Ruling out goals due to such almost imperceptible infractions isn't in the spirit of the game, for me. A few millimeters the other way and that goal is perfect, but it was an offence almost invisible to the naked eye that really gave no advantage (that goal was happening if she was a few millimetres onside). Again, not criticizing the officials from last night, they made the perfect call with the rules they've been given, I just disagree with the rules.

Edited July 3, 2019 by Davkaus

[Stevo985]

Just now, Davkaus said:

Personally, and I know we'll disagree on this after our brief exchange on offside last night, I'd have no slow motion or freezeframing at all. The best VAR for me would be simple replays used solely to overturn refs making a genuine howler, not trying to achieve absolute perfection.

Ruling out goals due to such almost imperceptible infractions isn't in the spirit of the game, for me. A few millimeters the other way and that goal is perfect, but it was an offence almost invisible to the naked eye that really gave no advantage. Again, not criticizing the officials from last night, they made the perfect call with the rules they've been given, I just disagree with the rules.

No argument with the offside rule. it does seem extreme. But I think with the current rules it works perfectly with VAR (albeit too slow, but I think it will speed up).

I've said before, I reckon the next technological advancement could be real time offside decisions made by technology

[StefanAVFC]

She was about to tap it in and the Yank CB clipped her. Clear pen but not a red. The CB didn't even argue.

[Stevo985]

Oh and for clarity I think the problem with "clear and Obvious" is that it's misinterpreted.

I THINK (and I'm happy to be corrected) that the clear and obvious refers to whether the referee has missed something. Not necessarily that a foul or a handball has occurred.

So I think the logic last night is that VAR has decided that it's clear and obvious that the referee has not seen the contact from the defender on the england striker. So it's then up to the ref to decide if that contact was enough for a foul.

They're not saying "it's clear and obvious that that WAS a penalty"

 

That's how I think it works, imo. But while I see the logic I still think it confuses matters to use that wording. They should never have said that as it's all people focus on.

[Stevo985]

Just now, StefanAVFC said:

She was about to tap it in and the Yank CB clipped her. Clear pen but not a red. The CB didn't even argue.

Yep. That's it for me. I don't think it's deliberate at all by the defender. But she has denied (albeit accidentally) an almost certain goal. It's a 5 yard tap in that's been denied by contact.

It's a pen for me.

[Genie]

20 minutes ago, Davkaus said:

Personally, and I know we'll disagree on this after our brief exchange on offside last night, I'd have no slow motion or freezeframing at all. The best VAR for me would be simple replays used solely to overturn refs making a genuine howler, not trying to achieve absolute perfection.

Ruling out goals due to such almost imperceptible infractions isn't in the spirit of the game, for me. A few millimeters the other way and that goal is perfect, but it was an offence almost invisible to the naked eye that really gave no advantage (that goal was happening if she was a few millimetres onside). Again, not criticizing the officials from last night, they made the perfect call with the rules they've been given, I just disagree with the rules.

I agree with you completely, I mentioned before, what VAR often does is takes away the common sense refereeing. The rules are there to stop someone gaining an advantage. If someone with bigger feet sees a goal ruled out because they were 2 inches off side when 50 yards from goal in the build up it seems excessive. They've not gained an advantage. This is the road we're on, rules is rules.

I worry if this will still get worse before it gets better. Will goals be disallowed if a quick free kick was taken from the wrong location? Or a throw in?

Kind of unrelated but I thought after the White goal was disallowed, and she did her little glasses celebration she'd have felt a bit of a prat when it was ruled out. I guess we'll lose these kind of things from the game over time.

[Stevo985]

21 minutes ago, Genie said:

I agree with you completely, I mentioned before, what VAR often does is takes away the common sense refereeing. The rules are there to stop someone gaining an advantage. If someone with bigger feet sees a goal ruled out because they were 2 inches off side when 50 yards from goal in the build up it seems excessive. They've not gained an advantage. This is the road we're on, rules is rules.

I understand the criticism, but again to me this is a criticism of the rules, not VAR. VAR is doing its job. It's calling offsides offsides that are otherwise being missed. If it's 2 inches then it's tough shit, according to the rules it's offside.

And I don't think the rules say you have to be gaining an advantage to be caught offside. If you're a yard offside by the corner flag receiving a 1 yard pass with 3 defenders around you, you're not gaining an advantage, but it's still offside. The rules aren't there to say every time you're offside you're gaining an advantage. it's to stop certain situations where it would be an advantage.

 

I understand the marginal calls criticism. But again I'm not really sure why coming to the right decision is a bad thing. Especially for offsides when it's pretty quick.

 

FWIW the england goal wasn't that marginal either. It was clear enough that the commentator said immediately on the first replay that it was off.

Edited July 3, 2019 by Stevo985

[sne]

So kits with built in sensors in the boots, knee socks, shorts, chest, shoulders and a headband with GPS tracking?

Sure there is a marketing opportunity for Google and Facebook in there somewhere that FIFA could profit from as well.

Or maybe bio chips implants for all players?

Wouldn't mind Barca players having The Running Man style exploding collars that go off every time they swarm the referee...

[villa4europe]

47 minutes ago, Stevo985 said:

No argument with the offside rule. it does seem extreme. But I think with the current rules it works perfectly with VAR (albeit too slow, but I think it will speed up).

I've said before, I reckon the next technological advancement could be real time offside decisions made by technology

agree, needs speeding up and people will hate it at first but it works

think the technology could do it if they included arms but if they stick with goal scoring part of your body (which I assume they're doing now) then the technology differentiating body parts would be hard going, if they change the rule and make it offside if your hand is ahead of the defender then its just getting harsher 

[Stevo985]

3 minutes ago, sne said:

So kits with built in sensors in the boots, knee socks, shorts, chest, shoulders and a headband with GPS tracking?

If that was in reply to the offside being done automatically, then no. 

[Genie]

11 minutes ago, Stevo985 said:

I understand the criticism, but again to me this is a criticism of the rules, not VAR. VAR is doing its job. It's calling offsides offsides that are otherwise being missed. If it's 2 inches then it's tough shit, according to the rules it's offside.

And I don't think the rules say you have to be gaining an advantage to be caught offside. If you're a yard offside by the corner flag receiving a 1 yard pass with 3 defenders around you, you're not gaining an advantage, but it's still offside. The rules aren't there to say every time you're offside you're gaining an advantage. it's to stop certain situations where it would be an advantage.

You've made the point I was making.

The rules don't explicitly say you have to gain an advantage to be offside, but that is the essence of it, the common sense is being eroded that allows the games to flow better. VAR has to be black and white about things, which is a loss to the game. I agree with your point about VAR only applying the rules, but now we've started this journey certain rules can't be written.

Pre VAR I don't think anyone would have been especially upset about a very marginal offiside in the build up to a goal. If the TV replay later showed it, zoomed in with special lines to be ever so slightly offside 4 passes before the goal vast majority of people would have shrugged it off and quickly forgot about it. I just don't think this is the kind of thing VAR was intended to do, but its where we've found ourselves.

 

[sne]

14 minutes ago, Stevo985 said:

If that was in reply to the offside being done automatically, then no. 

What technical solution is you referring to then out of interest?

If they can find it I'm sure it will be of help to the refs.

[Stevo985]

Just now, Genie said:

You've made the point I was making.

The rules don't explicitly say you have to gain an advantage to be offside, but that is the essence of it, the common sense is being eroded that allows the games to flow better. VAR has to be black and white about things, which is a loss to the game. I agree with your point about VAR only applying the rules, but now we've started this journey certain rules can't be written.

 

I don't think it is the essence of it.

That's what the rule is there to prevent, but that doesn't mean if you're not gaining an advantage you're not offside.

Most rules are like that. If you deliberately handle the ball in the right back position with nobody around you then you've not gained an advantage. but it's still handball.

 

I get the marginal argument, but not gaining an advantage isn't a reason for a decision not to be given, imo.

[Stevo985]

Just now, sne said:

What technical solution is you referring to then out of interest?

If they can find it I'm sure it will be of help to the refs.

The way they do it now on replays, but in real time.

I'm guessing that there will be a way to have those lines in real time and it'll be used to make instant offside decisions. 

 

it's nothing to do with GPS. I don't think GPS would be accurate enough to do that anyway.

[Genie]

1 minute ago, Stevo985 said:

I don't think it is the essence of it.

That's what the rule is there to prevent, but that doesn't mean if you're not gaining an advantage you're not offside.

Most rules are like that. If you deliberately handle the ball in the right back position with nobody around you then you've not gained an advantage. but it's still handball.

 

I get the marginal argument, but not gaining an advantage isn't a reason for a decision not to be given, imo.

I think you're a completely closed shop to any opposing discussion (as someone else suggested).

[sne]

Shame I'm too old because assistant referee or linesman will be the cushiest job in the world.

A bit of running and a yellow shirt and that's it.

Get to watch some great football and travel the world while having no responsibilities or pressure.

Guess they'll be gone soon enough but still.

[Stevo985]

1 hour ago, Genie said:

I think you're a completely closed shop to any opposing discussion (as someone else suggested).

Apart from all the times I've contributed to an opposing discussion? There's at least 3 posts from me on the last two pages in here that are negative about VAR.

The post you've quoted isn't even about VAR. it's about the offside rule. I actually agreed with the general point that the rule itself may need to be changed. My point was under the current rules VAR does it's job and that the offside rule doesn't consider gaining an advantage.

 

Ironically you and the other poster who suggested I only make positive posts about VAR post a lot more than I do in this thread and I don't see you guys ever contributing to a positive discussion about VAR. Which is entirely your prerogative. But glass houses and all that

Edited July 3, 2019 by Stevo985

[Genie]

5 minutes ago, Stevo985 said:

Apart from all the times I've contributed to an opposing discussion? There's at least 3 posts from me on the last two pages in here that are negative about VAR.

The post you've quoted isn't even about VAR. it's about the offside rule. I actually agreed with the general point that the rule itself may need to be changed. My point was under the current rules VAR does it's job and that the offside rule doesn't consider gaining an advantage.

 

Ironically you and the other poster who suggested I only make positive posts about VAR post a lot more than I do in this thread and I don't see you guys ever contributing to a positive discussion about VAR. Which is entirely your prerogative. But glass houses and all that

Its not about the offside rule. Its about common sense officiating allowing games to flow where a rule might have technically been infringed. Something everybody benefits from, but VAR will chip at. Ball bounces up onto the right backs arm, then down, ref immediately shouts "play on" and everybody plays on and that's that.

I can't see anybody being against higher percentages of correct decisions, but it needs to be sensible and not just for the sake of "rules are rules". This is where we're going. The implementation is all wrong, and the stoppages are killing big games.

I expect carnage in the premier league. Referee's have a bad enough time already mainly fuelled by the UK media. They are going to want to review everything 10 times on the screen as nobody on or off the pitch will have the balls to make a borderline call. It'll be like WC final every match such is the worldwide scrutiny.

[blandy]

11 minutes ago, Genie said:

it needs to be sensible and not just for the sake of "rules are rules". This is where we're going. The implementation is all wrong, and the stoppages are killing big games.

Yeah, this.

I think where an offside decision is a matter of a few centimeters, then technically the law says it is offside. However like with last night's, the TV replay did not show any "clear and obvious" error on the part of the Lino. Indeed linos are told, now, not to flag if it's marginal, in case they wrongly flag it offside when it's not and so prevent a legit goal being scored. So the VAR has changed the way linos operate, in order to replace human eye/judgement with TV imagery. But, the TV imagery, move it forward/back a frame or two and last night's decision is on/off-side. What is the exact frame the pass is made? it's just transferred a very, very marginal call from a Lino to a TV replay operator. It's still a human call when it's so tight, and the TV human call is deemed the absolute arbiter. If it's feet offside, then fine, but 5 cm that is shown on one TV frame, but not the one before - that's taking it too far, IMO. It's not, as you say "sensible".

[sne]

It will be the Zapruder film for every little situation.

Back, and to the left, back, and to the left...