World cup Var

[MarcusX]

4 hours ago, Davefevs said:

@1960maaan thanks for the earlier post.

The fact that they showed the image without the keeper is worrying though.  How many times do we as footie fans have to reiterate the rule that it’s the last two players, not the last player and the goalie.  It looks like they got lucky that the striker’s boot was just goalside of the keeper’s arse too.

Do you really think it's possible that a VAR official is unaware of the offside at such an obvious level? I think it's as I said above, they took the keeper away simply to show viewers the front of the player and where the line is drawn. The angle of the TV presentation cannot show it accurately and if the line was drawn on with the keeper infront it would look wrong (due to perception and angles) 

 

3 hours ago, Harry said:

How does the Argentina one get given and Maguire’s not. Baffling. 
They are exactly the same. 
I wondered if the England one was ‘too early in the game’ but the Argentina one is also in the first few minutes, so that excuse is also scrubbed. 

Basically the fundamental flaw with VAR - it's still down to individual opinion on the day so one day it's a foul, next it's not. VAR got it wrong on Maguire yesterday, I believe if the on-field ref got a second look he'd have given it.

It could even be that off the back of the incident yesterday, VAR have been briefed that should be a foul - give future ones. A bit more transparency wouldn't go a miss with VAR, especially for people in the stadium.

[Davefevs]

25 minutes ago, MarcusX said:

The keeper was removed for visability that's all... it was just a visual animation of why the player is offside - it would still have been compared against the keeper for the terms of offside.

You sure about that?  The keeper was deeper than that particular player, therefore the line should’ve been drawn from the keeper!

[1960maaan]

40 minutes ago, MarcusX said:

The keeper was removed for visability that's all... it was just a visual animation of why the player is offside - it would still have been compared against the keeper for the terms of offside.

Not saying you are wrong, but It seems mad to remove the point of reference, from an image trying to explain something. 

[DaveInSA]

At times like these, and in these discussions, we need the late Brian Clough.

If a player is not interfering with play, why are they on the pitch.

It's almost as if the "penalty area" has different laws to the rest of the pitch. At least they seem to for Bristol City and England.

[Rocking Red Cyril]

9 hours ago, MarcusX said:

Do you really think it's possible that a VAR official is unaware of the offside at such an obvious level? I think it's as I said above, they took the keeper away simply to show viewers the front of the player and where the line is drawn. The angle of the TV presentation cannot show it accurately and if the line was drawn on with the keeper infront it would look wrong (due to perception and angles) 

 

Basically the fundamental flaw with VAR - it's still down to individual opinion on the day so one day it's a foul, next it's not. VAR got it wrong on Maguire yesterday, I believe if the on-field ref got a second look he'd have given it.

It could even be that off the back of the incident yesterday, VAR have been briefed that should be a foul - give future ones. A bit more transparency wouldn't go a miss with VAR, especially for people in the stadium.

Yes var views on big screens and hear Var analysis and any conversation with refferes total transparency 

[BTRFTG]

9 hours ago, DaveInSA said:

At times like these, and in these discussions, we need the late Brian Clough.

If a player is not interfering with play, why are they on the pitch.

It's almost as if the "penalty area" has different laws to the rest of the pitch. At least they seem to for Bristol City and England.

Clough did say that but various managers preceded him in so doing. Valid point though.

But it's not just the penalty area that receives special exemption. Players (usually defenders,) running the ball out of play making no effort to control the ball yet preventing an opponent from so doing. It's obstruction, though never given. Dangerous or violent conduct by goalkeepers in claiming the ball, punishable for any other player but goalkeepers have free reign to act as they wish in the box. There's also the temporal exemption. Horror challenge in the first 5 and its a stiff warning from the ref. Same challenge 10 minutes later sees an instant red.

T'was ever thus and all VAR has achieved has been to magnify and provide ample evidence for the inconsistency in officiating fans see first hand. It's introduced more inconsistency and error than its removed.

[kit]

I vaguely recall var being not too bad at the last World Cup, only really intervening with shockers. There was still the odd bad call. I might have remembered incorrectly. 

This year it seems like they have seen what a complete hash the premier league has made of it and thought yes we'll have a bit of that shambles and see how many games we can ruin with crap decisions. 

[Sir Geoff]

No mention on here of the Lewandoski penalty. Only seen it once but he was doing as much shirt pulling as the defender. Didn't look like a penalty imo.

[MarcusX]

19 hours ago, Davefevs said:

You sure about that?  The keeper was deeper than that particular player, therefore the line should’ve been drawn from the keeper!

 

19 hours ago, 1960maaan said:

Not saying you are wrong, but It seems mad to remove the point of reference, from an image trying to explain something. 

I could be wrong, and on further viewing I might be!

It looked to me like they removed the keeper to show the player - because from the tv cameras it's not actually obvious there is TWO players there

I was giving them benefit of the doubt that we can't see the lines properly due to angle and perspective, but I've watched it again from the video that @Bazooka Joeshared and it's just odd.

Lack of communication is one of VARs biggest downfalls, along with transparency. Also not helped that each organisation / league / competition uses it differently, doesn't seem to be any uniform application.

Also, further contradicting my earlier view, it appears that there was a mistake in the Argentina game?

[1960maaan]

39 minutes ago, MarcusX said:

because from the tv cameras it's not actually obvious there is TWO players there

That threw me to start with, I was absolutely convinced it was onside and a real bad error. Only having watched it a few times I realised that one player ,effectively heads it to another. 

41 minutes ago, MarcusX said:

Also, further contradicting my earlier view, it appears that there was a mistake in the Argentina game?

I saw that, apparently they missed the left back completely.

Not showing VAR in a good light so far this Tournament .

[BTRFTG]

23 hours ago, ExiledAjax said:

Yes, the issue is not VAR itself, the issue is that the fundamental Laws of the Game are not written with VAR in mind. In my opinion there are two fundamental issues with the Laws currently, both are set out in IFAB's preamble to the Laws, and are as follows:

• "...the Laws of the Game are the same for all football throughout the world, from the FIFA World Cup through to a game between young children in a remote village..."; and
• "The Laws cannot deal with every possible situation, so where there is no direct provision in the Laws, The IFAB expects the referee to make a decision within the ‘spirit’ of the game and the Laws – this often involves asking the question, “what would football want/expect?".

These two statements are incredible in their own right. Firstly you have a clear statement that the Laws are being written so that your man in the middle on the Downs on Sunday can use the same rulebook as the bloke reffing the World Cup final. That's a lovely notion, but when you then equip one of those referees with slow motion replays, digital rulers, and a team of 6 assistants, whilst the other has his own eyes and Barry on the touchline yelling at him, it seems absurd to expect them to fairly and equally apply the Laws. You naturally have to draft the Laws to account for the least well equipped referee, and so you create huge confusion when the bloke with VAR does something differently.

The second statement then says that at the end of the day the referee's personal interpretation of the "spirit" of football is the deciding factor. Again, a beautiful notion that I am sure we all admire, but it introduces an inevitability that someone's personal interpretation of a Law might conflict with the digital wizardry of VAR. Which is to prevail?

To my mind these two statements fundamentally create an issue with the application of the Laws when you then introduce an incredibly sophisticated, but also harshly objective tool such as VAR. That mismatch then causes confusion when fans see two referees apply the laws differently , despite both using VAR. It's not VAR that is the issue, it's the laws not being designed to be so harshly applied, yet still with subjective opinion being a factor.

IFAB's VAR Protocol sets out when and how VAR is used, but it does nothing to alter the base Laws of the Game to account for the fact that a referee has VAR at his disposal. It also reinforces the idea that the referee's opinion - which is going to be personal and subjective - is final when it says "The final decision is always taken by the referee, either based on information from the VAR or after the referee has undertaken an ‘on-field review’". So it hands the referee an empirical and harsh machine tool, and then says "oh but ultimately it's your human opinion that counts". No wonder we still discuss VAR inconsistency!

The only solution, for me, is for IFAB to create additional or supplementary Laws of the Game that can be used when VAR is present. A part of that would, for me, be to remove the "referee's opinion" element of the Laws for which VAR is used". Obviously doing that runs contrary to the stated objective that the Laws be the same for all football, but when the tools available are different, it is absurd that the Laws should be the same.

Great post but wrong 'horse before cart' conclusion.

The beauty of The Laws, the ones the WC Final ref and the ref on The Downs honestly attempt to apply in equal measure is fundamental to fairness in the game. Officials make honest mistakes, always did, always will and VAR does nothing to prevent that. 

What VAR has already done and that your proposal will only heighten, is the separation of rich from poor. We've already begun to see challenge where games at equal standard have been influenced by whether or not VAR was in operation, either able to be installed or temporarily inoperative. Remind, VAR isn't just cameras, its as fundamental as defining unchanging pitch dimensions each and every week. Where consequences are financially huge we've heard threat of court action based on individual incident, using comparable footage taken from multiple matches, targeted at certain officials. How long before the most important squad member becomes the club retained silk, not their centre forward?

Audiovisual technology must never be used to define The Laws. That's not it's purpose.

The solution is blindingly obvious and that is to scrap VAR. Put control and respect back into the hands of the officials (technology sure as hell is doing its best at undermining officials at all levels and unless one lives in the Metaverse how do we think football might be played without officials coming through?) 

The changes that need to be made are not with The Laws rather are to the licencing rights. Broadcasters and publishers should continue to highlight when mistakes arise but should be required to provide balance by highlighting the decisions called correctly in the face of incorrect pleadings of players and fans. The latter outweighing the former by a country mile. Broadcasters and publishers might also reinforce that any error was exactly that, an error honestly made. Accept it, move on.

Fans, possibly the least impartial arbiters imaginable, aren't as exasperated as the hyped media prefer to make out, or attempt best to make them. Rarely do errors against ones team linger longer than the second post match pint but those in favour, now they're something special. Freddie Sears goal, witnessed by everybody at AG other than the officials and its post match impact on Warnock lives long in the memory and to this day brings a smile to my face.

Its called football, enjoy it, errors and all.

[ExiledAjax]

1 hour ago, BTRFTG said:

Great post but wrong 'horse before cart' conclusion.

The beauty of The Laws, the ones the WC Final ref and the ref on The Downs honestly attempt to apply in equal measure is fundamental to fairness in the game. Officials make honest mistakes, always did, always will and VAR does nothing to prevent that. 

What VAR has already done and that your proposal will only heighten, is the separation of rich from poor. We've already begun to see challenge where games at equal standard have been influenced by whether or not VAR was in operation, either able to be installed or temporarily inoperative. Remind, VAR isn't just cameras, its as fundamental as defining unchanging pitch dimensions each and every week. Where consequences are financially huge we've heard threat of court action based on individual incident, using comparable footage taken from multiple matches, targeted at certain officials. How long before the most important squad member becomes the club retained silk, not their centre forward?

Audiovisual technology must never be used to define The Laws. That's not it's purpose.

The solution is blindingly obvious and that is to scrap VAR. Put control and respect back into the hands of the officials (technology sure as hell is doing its best at undermining officials at all levels and unless one lives in the Metaverse how do we think football might be played without officials coming through?) 

The changes that need to be made are not with The Laws rather are to the licencing rights. Broadcasters and publishers should continue to highlight when mistakes arise but should be required to provide balance by highlighting the decisions called correctly in the face of incorrect pleadings of players and fans. The latter outweighing the former by a country mile. Broadcasters and publishers might also reinforce that any error was exactly that, an error honestly made. Accept it, move on.

Fans, possibly the least impartial arbiters imaginable, aren't as exasperated as the hyped media prefer to make out, or attempt best to make them. Rarely do errors against ones team linger longer than the second post match pint but those in favour, now they're something special. Freddie Sears goal, witnessed by everybody at AG other than the officials and its post match impact on Warnock lives long in the memory and to this day brings a smile to my face.

Its called football, enjoy it, errors and all.

I think your viewpoint has great merit. However, I also think that we are now in a position where it could be considered romantic to the point of idealistic. You quite rightly make the case for broadcasters to reassess their presentation of refereeing. However, I don't think it is realistic to expect broadcasters and pundits to redress their commentary in order to promote the positive referring decisions over the negative. I don't thin human nature takes us that way, I don't think the high stakes of international tournament football take us that way, and honestly I don't think the intellectual capacity of your average football pundit takes us that way. Whether contractually obliged to do so or not, I don't think Roy Keane or Ashley Williams are going to stick to a "balanced" presentation of refereeing decisions.

Thus my earlier post started from an assumption that VAR will not be scrapped. I don't think it will realistically be completely scrapped, but I do think it could be reformed. My suggestion for that reform is a two-tier system of Laws, with each tier tailored to the tools that a referee at that level has at his disposal. Yes that would create a two-tier system, but I'd argue that we are already in that situation because referees at high-level football have very different tools available to them.

Football needs to be a little bit adventurous in order to resolve this issue. I think it needs to critically assess it's fundamental structures - and that includes a proper assessment of the Laws and their current fitness for purpose.

[RedHienz]

It's no better then having one man make a decision.

We have a team of seven now making inconsistent call, decision by committee it seems.

[BTRFTG]

6 minutes ago, ExiledAjax said:

Ashley Williams are going to stick to a "balanced" presentation of refereeing decisions

Might he be related to the Ashley Williams charged with violent and improper conduct at an Under 12 boys fixture in Manchester?

Methinks broadcasters need to take set an example else be forced to set an example should they continue  their adversarial undermining of officials that seeks only to boost TV ratings. 

[Nongazeuse]

To be fair, Wiliams was let off the charge as he was deemed to have been defending himself. 

[frenchred]

17 hours ago, BTRFTG said:

Might he be related to the Ashley Williams charged with violent and improper conduct at an Under 12 boys fixture in Manchester?

Methinks broadcasters need to take set an example else be forced to set an example should they continue  their adversarial undermining of officials that seeks only to boost TV ratings. 

Oh dear, had a bit of a mare there in holier than thou towers

[BTRFTG]

16 hours ago, Nongazeuse said:

To be fair, Wiliams was let off the charge as he was deemed to have been defending himself. 

Funny that as the footage showed him being restrained from twice going back for 'more'. Guess he deployed the 'attack is the best form of defence' argument. 

To remind, an Under 12's match....