VAR

[hinsleburg]

35 minutes ago, MarcusX said:

At least two, first one was soft but the handball should have been (but maybe not if you follow the Grealish one?!) and the third was a nailed on pen

I think if all 3 were given onfield VAR wouldn't have overturned any of them, I think they should have overturned the last two though and think the 3rd one was as Stonewall as you get. (However, I get why the referee didn't give it from his angle so VAR should have been all over it!)

The Forest statement for me is a big concern and heads need to roll for that. Think there's a big difference between implying somebody is incompetent as opposed to calling them out as cheating and corrupt. Having watched Stuart Attwell over the years I certainly don't think he's competent, but it's then a big leap to accuse of consciously cheating...

[Three Lions]

57 minutes ago, MarcusX said:

I would say it's not strictly "unnatural" (your arms do move when you jump) but I'm regularly told on a Saturday afternoon by referees when standing in the wall, that you can cover your bits but cant have your arms out by your side. I would say yes Grealish is making himself bigger.

It's ok to say take them in isolation, but this is what is most frustrating in football - and this rule in particularly - there's no continuity. What's a pen one week, isn't the next and it means no one has a clue what's going on.

Where in the laws of games does it say you cant have arms that stick out the side of your torso by your side?? Save you the time it doesnt. Steady with the first I biggering sticking your arms right out locked out above your head flapping them around natural? It isnt and thats whats highlighted in the law 12 hand/arms in a unnatural position runs the risk of being struck by the ball and its an offence.

Your saying Grealishes arms are not in a unnatural position so yes he is bigger but its natural and then justifiable for that specific situation. If its unnaturally bigger for the specific situation and ball hits arm band its an offence. Theres that thing there specific situation so each situation is specific, and specific situation is in the laws and that’s the continuity that should chucked at each decision.

[Markthehorn]

25 minutes ago, hinsleburg said:

I think if all 3 were given onfield VAR wouldn't have overturned any of them, I think they should have overturned the last two though and think the 3rd one was as Stonewall as you get. (However, I get why the referee didn't give it from his angle so VAR should have been all over it!)

The Forest statement for me is a big concern and heads need to roll for that. Think there's a big difference between implying somebody is incompetent as opposed to calling them out as cheating and corrupt. Having watched Stuart Attwell over the years I certainly don't think he's competent, but it's then a big leap to accuse of consciously cheating...

Should a ref be in charge of games involving rival clubs of the team they support as we have had Atwell and Keith Stroud  a lot over the years ?

[Erithacus]

Having used technology to broadcast football matches and then introduced the incident replay to audiences it soon became clear that some officials' decisions were not correct. That became a problem that the governing bodies sought to solve by using more technology and hence we now have the (somewhat primitive) method of an official in another town manually placing lines on a two-dimensional screen image and trying to extrapolate it into three dimensions. That still leaves lots of room for indecision and, indeed, errors in the system designed to eliminate them. I have to admit I am not a fan of technology used at the very top level that can't be used at grass roots - it makes it two different games, not one.

Goal line technology looks to have made it though. We rarely make such accusations about that system. Offsides and penalty shouts are the concern.

We struggle to accurately define a moment in time and a method to resolve it. However we try, we still end up with a subjective opinion based on a particular individual or individuals who are not the actual match officials. That's not withstanding the delays and stoppage of passions that now break up the game.

I don't see any real advance on what we will have for the forthcoming future but I do think there might be a better way forwards with regards to offside claims. Modern footballers wear tracking modules that log their every move on the pitch, sending a stream of data to receivers pitchside. So why not use them to determine whether they are closer to the goalline or not? I see this as analogous to the transponders used in motor racing that accurately determine lap times to a thousandth of a second. That seems to work well enough and is almost instant. I appreciate that in play it will have to be used retrospectively and that someone will still have to replay the incident to mark the exact time of the pass, but it might significantly cut down the lines and waiting around. It also defers the responsibility to a computer, not a human.

[hinsleburg]

1 hour ago, Markthehorn said:

Should a ref be in charge of games involving rival clubs of the team they support as we have had Atwell and Keith Stroud  a lot over the years ?

Is Keith Stroud not just shit for everyone though...

I do agree with your point above and ultimately if Forest had complained before the game like they said and they had the chance to change it then they should have, removes this whole debate. I'd be interested in hearing why he wasn't removed as VAR and think this will rumble on more

I do have sympathy for Forest, but I'm not comfortable with the tone of bias and cheating in their statement and think its unnecessary, call out competence not behaviours.

[sh1t_ref_again]

38 minutes ago, Erithacus said:

Having used technology to broadcast football matches and then introduced the incident replay to audiences it soon became clear that some officials' decisions were not correct. That became a problem that the governing bodies sought to solve by using more technology and hence we now have the (somewhat primitive) method of an official in another town manually placing lines on a two-dimensional screen image and trying to extrapolate it into three dimensions. That still leaves lots of room for indecision and, indeed, errors in the system designed to eliminate them. I have to admit I am not a fan of technology used at the very top level that can't be used at grass roots - it makes it two different games, not one.

Goal line technology looks to have made it though. We rarely make such accusations about that system. Offsides and penalty shouts are the concern.

We struggle to accurately define a moment in time and a method to resolve it. However we try, we still end up with a subjective opinion based on a particular individual or individuals who are not the actual match officials. That's not withstanding the delays and stoppage of passions that now break up the game.

I don't see any real advance on what we will have for the forthcoming future but I do think there might be a better way forwards with regards to offside claims. Modern footballers wear tracking modules that log their every move on the pitch, sending a stream of data to receivers pitchside. So why not use them to determine whether they are closer to the goalline or not? I see this as analogous to the transponders used in motor racing that accurately determine lap times to a thousandth of a second. That seems to work well enough and is almost instant. I appreciate that in play it will have to be used retrospectively and that someone will still have to replay the incident to mark the exact time of the pass, but it might significantly cut down the lines and waiting around. It also defers the responsibility to a computer, not a human.

You would have thought in the days now of AI, an automated system could be introduced for offsides, which would make it much quicker and take the human element out of it.

The modern game is so quick its nearly impossible for a linesman to always be up with play and be able to look down the line when a ball is played.

I think most people would accept VAR if it was what it was introduced to be, "clear and obvious errors", if it can't be determined in 30 seconds its not clear and obvious so the refs original play stands, but thinks refs are currently not making the call and waiting for VAR to do it for them.

[Markthehorn]

Forest are asking for the audio but that won’t change anything .

We’d all heard them before and really aren’t the decisions subjective (even if “wrong”)?

[WarksRobin]

 

[WarksRobin]

Keep digging….

[Markthehorn]

3 minutes ago, WarksRobin said:

Keep digging….

If all the clubs hate VAR that much they should all come out together and decry it.

Not just when it goes against them.

It's been poor for everyone but some act like they have been the only ones affected,

[REDOXO]

It, of course, is not VAR per se. However application of it can be extremely iffy!

I said somewhere, there was one nailed on Peno. No doubt!! There were two that could have gone either way. The handball reminded me of ours V Huddersfield! Some say yes some say no! The first shout the same. Some say yes some say no!

However the one where he’s gone through the player from behind and not touched the ball is deeply concerning!

I wouldn’t go along with the VAR ref is a cheat, BUT there can be covert bias! The onfield ref needed help and it didn’t come!

Forest have a right to be furious on that count!

On a slightly different subject the Coventry offside goal is an example of how VAR has got everyone in a hole. To go that long in a game of that magnitude to say someone is offside by less than a centimeter is hardly clear and obvious (unlike the penalty shout at Everton)

 

My thought is that VAR operators have got it right more than wrong but the laws have to be tightened and the appearance of any impropriety be taken seriously.
 

Billions are spent on sports betting with careers and clubs futures on the line in some big games. If rules are not clear and operated effectively we might as well go back to not having it!

In the meantime someone will have to explain publicly how that was possibly not a penalty and Forest will get shafted for publicly pointing it out  

 

 

 

 

[MarcusX]

14 hours ago, East Londoner said:

They certainly didn’t have any issues about the integrity of VAR then or Jon Moss being from Leeds 

John Moss isn’t from Leeds, he’s from Sunderland?

[formerly known as ivan]

3 hours ago, WarksRobin said:

Keep digging….

This is absolutely fine in my book. Clubs should at an absolute minimum be able to hear what was discussed. I’d even go as far as saying it should be played live at the ground when the conversation is taking place.

[downendcity]

On 21/04/2024 at 22:00, Davefevs said:

Definitely has to be a manager’s review system.

A few weeks ago i listened to an interview on Talksport with the guy who invented the Hawkeye system, from which VAR was developed.

He said that VAR is the contribution to sport he is least proud of. and he went on to say that it's not the VAR system itself, but the way it's been introduced that he has problems with, as it was designed to be a challenge based system, as is Hawkeye in tennis and cricket. 

Edited April 22 by downendcity

[downendcity]

6 hours ago, WarksRobin said:

 

They will probably give Forest an additional points deduction, as punishment just to make doubly sure Everton is safe for another season - as if Everton haven't had enough help already!

[downendcity]

3 hours ago, REDOXO said:

It, of course, is not VAR per se. However application of it can be extremely iffy!

I said somewhere, there was one nailed on Peno. No doubt!! There were two that could have gone either way. The handball reminded me of ours V Huddersfield! Some say yes some say no! The first shout the same. Some say yes some say no!

However the one where he’s gone through the player from behind and not touched the ball is deeply concerning!

I wouldn’t go along with the VAR ref is a cheat, BUT there can be covert bias! The onfield ref needed help and it didn’t come!

Forest have a right to be furious on that count!

On a slightly different subject the Coventry offside goal is an example of how VAR has got everyone in a hole. To go that long in a game of that magnitude to say someone is offside by less than a centimeter is hardly clear and obvious (unlike the penalty shout at Everton)

 

My thought is that VAR operators have got it right more than wrong but the laws have to be tightened and the appearance of any impropriety be taken seriously.
 

Billions are spent on sports betting with careers and clubs futures on the line in some big games. If rules are not clear and operated effectively we might as well go back to not having it!

In the meantime someone will have to explain publicly how that was possibly not a penalty and Forest will get shafted for publicly pointing it out  

Before the introduction of VAR fans, pundits, managers and players would have differences of opinion over contentious refereeing decisions. This was when the ref had a split second to make a judgement call, in real time and with only one view - often without being able to see the incident clearly.

Now, despite the VAR panel being able to view a contentious decision on TV replays in their own time, with slo-mo and multiple camera angles we still have fans,pundits, managers and players all having differing opinions ( although the worry is that many of those opinions are united in disagreeing with the VAR decision).

As with the Coventry offside in the semi final, I think that fans in particular agree that too many decisions where VAR intervenes are not clear and obvious errors . On the flip side, e.g. at least one of Forest's 3 penalty shouts, it seems that VAR refuses to support clear and obvious errors by the ref.

I've mentioned before that in the past I regarded rugby union's review system as the model football should emulate. However, in the last rugby WC, and especially the final, it was noticeable that the people operating the review system were wanting to be more involved in the game, as they were telling the referee about incidents that should be looked at rather than the referee requesting a review of an incident about which he wasn't sure. That is how how VAR has developed, and seems to be continuing to develop.

 

[East Londoner]

1 hour ago, MarcusX said:

John Moss isn’t from Leeds, he’s from Sunderland?

Lives in Leeds 

[Malago]

The simple solution to the VAR problem is to allow, as in cricket, the on field captain to call for a review of contentious decisions.  I would suggest one review per each half, to be retained if the review is successful, lost if it’s not.  As in cricket the review would be carried out by an off field official whose decision would be binding.   No need to send the on field ref to a monitor.  
 

The on field captain would be able to review any decision, including offside, handball, potential second yellow cards etc.etc and adds an element of discretion in the use of VAR.

 

[Markthehorn]

4 hours ago, Malago said:

The simple solution to the VAR problem is to allow, as in cricket, the on field captain to call for a review of contentious decisions.  I would suggest one review per each half, to be retained if the review is successful, lost if it’s not.  As in cricket the review would be carried out by an off field official whose decision would be binding.   No need to send the on field ref to a monitor.  
 

The on field captain would be able to review any decision, including offside, handball, potential second yellow cards etc.etc and adds an element of discretion in the use of VAR.

 

All good ideas but we all know  teams will want more and kick off post game about not having any left to appeal against a decision they thought was wrong .

The decision will still be subjective too whereas in other sports they are more factual and not disputed. 

[downendcity]

[SecretSam]

Florists, today

[SecretSam]

11 hours ago, Malago said:

The simple solution to the VAR problem is to allow, as in cricket, the on field captain to call for a review of contentious decisions.  I would suggest one review per each half, to be retained if the review is successful, lost if it’s not.  As in cricket the review would be carried out by an off field official whose decision would be binding.   No need to send the on field ref to a monitor.  
 

The on field captain would be able to review any decision, including offside, handball, potential second yellow cards etc.etc and adds an element of discretion in the use of VAR.

 

I think VAR should ONLY be used on appeal. 

As for the Florists, I have zero sympathy. Having seen the highlights, only one of the three incidents was a possible pen. 

Clutching at straws.

[Roe]

I'm not sure how people think being able to "appeal" like in cricket etc would help. These decisions people are talking about have already been reviewed and people will always disagree with subjective calls

[SecretSam]

On 22/04/2024 at 11:22, MarcusX said:

I think what they need to do is make the conversation audible, at least to TV audiences. That would ensure there's at least an understanding of the process

And show the incident on the screens, like in egg chasing and cricket

1 minute ago, Roe said:

I'm not sure how people think being able to "appeal" like in cricket etc would help. These decisions people are talking about have already been reviewed and people will always disagree with subjective calls

VAR is only used on appeal. Simples. You get one or two per game.

[Roe]

4 minutes ago, SecretSam said:

And show the incident on the screens, like in egg chasing and cricket

VAR is only used on appeal. Simples. You get one or two per game.

So for example in the Forest game, they appeal the first one and the VAR disagrees as happened. No penalty and no more appeals? Or is it a case of if you appeal, you'd almost be forcing the VAR to make a decision in your favour to avoid backlash?

I feel like that would just open it up to even more confusion personally.

[Malago]

4 minutes ago, Roe said:

I'm not sure how people think being able to "appeal" like in cricket etc would help. These decisions people are talking about have already been reviewed and people will always disagree with subjective calls

Down the road AI may be the answer.  It would relatively straightforward to programme what is a hand ball, what is a foul etc.  It will almost certainly need refining and various iterations, but taking the human element out of VAR is the way forwards.

[Markthehorn]

6 minutes ago, Roe said:

So for example in the Forest game, they appeal the first one and the VAR disagrees as happened. No penalty and no more appeals? Or is it a case of if you appeal, you'd almost be forcing the VAR to make a decision in your favour to avoid backlash?

I feel like that would just open it up to even more confusion personally.

Trouble is we all know there will be a massive outcry for more appeals if after a team uses one which isn’t “successful “ they have a much stronger case potentially for a decision but it cannot be looked at as the opportunity has been used up.

In cricket the teams accept the final decision as in rugby but obviously in football they don’t.

I agree the communication could be better and time taken out of the game .

[SecretSam]

43 minutes ago, Roe said:

So for example in the Forest game, they appeal the first one and the VAR disagrees as happened. No penalty and no more appeals? Or is it a case of if you appeal, you'd almost be forcing the VAR to make a decision in your favour to avoid backlash?

I feel like that would just open it up to even more confusion personally.

Works in other sports. It's got to be better than the referee effectively having every decision scrutinised by VAR, like some over-zealous teacher.

[Markthehorn]

9 minutes ago, SecretSam said:

Works in other sports. It's got to be better than the referee effectively having every decision scrutinised by VAR, like some over-zealous teacher.

Yes true and it works well  but you know what clubs are like .

They will want more and get in a strop if an “obvious error” in their eyes is missed because they have no appeals left .

Could we use a “umpires call “ type system where his decision is final but the  team don’t lose a review for subjective decisions?

[transfer reader]