Will VAR Change Football for the Better?
Discussion
TwigtheWonderkid said:
That means he might have been further offside than the lines show, or maybe level or onside. Surely all they can do is go by the lines. If you start trying to ignore the lines to take into account the inability to capture the exact millisecond the ball was passed, which way do you go?
The whole VAR moaning is just like those idiots who say "this isn't the Brexit I voted for". Which is odd, because it's exactly the Brexit I voted against.
I was against VAR because it was sold on a lie, the lie being getting decisions right would be good for the game. No, it's bad for the game. The game needs the odd bad decision. It's an integral part of football. Football was way better before VAR.
So my point stands. VAR may or may not have got it right. It’s therefore not accurate and therefore flawed. If they can’t pinpoint the exact millisecond, then they can’t pinpoint how offside or onside a player might be. The whole VAR moaning is just like those idiots who say "this isn't the Brexit I voted for". Which is odd, because it's exactly the Brexit I voted against.
I was against VAR because it was sold on a lie, the lie being getting decisions right would be good for the game. No, it's bad for the game. The game needs the odd bad decision. It's an integral part of football. Football was way better before VAR.
I didn’t vote for Brexit or VAR. I remember getting a vote in a referendum for one, but not the other.
LF5335 said:
TwigtheWonderkid said:
That means he might have been further offside than the lines show, or maybe level or onside. Surely all they can do is go by the lines. If you start trying to ignore the lines to take into account the inability to capture the exact millisecond the ball was passed, which way do you go?
The whole VAR moaning is just like those idiots who say "this isn't the Brexit I voted for". Which is odd, because it's exactly the Brexit I voted against.
I was against VAR because it was sold on a lie, the lie being getting decisions right would be good for the game. No, it's bad for the game. The game needs the odd bad decision. It's an integral part of football. Football was way better before VAR.
So my point stands. VAR may or may not have got it right. It’s therefore not accurate and therefore flawed. If they can’t pinpoint the exact millisecond, then they can’t pinpoint how offside or onside a player might be. The whole VAR moaning is just like those idiots who say "this isn't the Brexit I voted for". Which is odd, because it's exactly the Brexit I voted against.
I was against VAR because it was sold on a lie, the lie being getting decisions right would be good for the game. No, it's bad for the game. The game needs the odd bad decision. It's an integral part of football. Football was way better before VAR.
TwigtheWonderkid said:
So how do they resolve that? Failing scrapping VAR, which they sadly aren't going to do. A player that the lines show onside by a whisker might actually be offside, and visa versa. Surely all they can do is go by the lines?
Margin for error of n% or thinker lines, or something. Yes, I know that someone will then be 0.01mm over the thicker line, but here 0.01mm over the margin of error and therefore it’s more acceptable, at least it is to me. Or bin the whole thing, because it’s s
t and ruining the game. LF5335 said:
TwigtheWonderkid said:
So how do they resolve that? Failing scrapping VAR, which they sadly aren't going to do. A player that the lines show onside by a whisker might actually be offside, and visa versa. Surely all they can do is go by the lines?
Margin for error of n% or thinker lines, or something. Yes, I know that someone will then be 0.01mm over the thicker line, but here 0.01mm over the margin of error and therefore it’s more acceptable, at least it is to me. TwigtheWonderkid said:
Blib said:
The supporters of VAR, before it's introduction, said we needed VAR to get "the big calls right". This was a big call, a Euros knock out game, and it got a big call right. It is offside. Now those same people are saying "it's too accurate, it's ruining the game, it's getting the big calls right when I want leeway to get them a bit wrong."Absolutely bonkers. This is exactly what VAR was always about . You all got what you wanted, but instead of admitting you were wrong, you're complaining about it being too precise. .
TX.
Terminator X said:
TwigtheWonderkid said:
Blib said:
The supporters of VAR, before it's introduction, said we needed VAR to get "the big calls right". This was a big call, a Euros knock out game, and it got a big call right. It is offside. Now those same people are saying "it's too accurate, it's ruining the game, it's getting the big calls right when I want leeway to get them a bit wrong."Absolutely bonkers. This is exactly what VAR was always about . You all got what you wanted, but instead of admitting you were wrong, you're complaining about it being too precise. .
TX.
TwigtheWonderkid said:
That will mean someone who is judged to be onside by the current lines, but was actually offside had the picture been taken at the exact moment the ball was kicked, will appear to be more comfortably onside, when he was in reality off. Given people wanted VAR to "get the big calls right", I'm not sure that's the answer.
No it won’t. I haven’t suggested at any point that the exact moment that the ball leaves the passing player’s foot will be identified. I don’t think it ever could be. As a result I’m suggesting that a margin of error is factored in to account for them not being able to identify the exact moment. The only thing that will happen is that the players currently being given off side my millimetres will now be deemed onside. Those currently being seen as offside by a larger margin will be deemed less offside, but still offside. The current thin lines have zero margins of error. That’s all I’m suggesting. I dislike VAR intensely. I would like it removed from the game, it that’s never going to happen, so now it’s about improving the use of it and not ruining the game with hairline decisions that can not actually be as accurate as is currently being claimed.
I said before, I'd rather see some mistakes from referees but a game of spontaneity and passion. Rather than what feels like every goal met with "Oh there's a VAR check", then double celebrations, or worse, no celebrations (by one team at least) as it's been overturned.
The game in my view was never meant to be a game of science. It's a sport.
I support a team in League One (Reading unfortunately), and although the standard of officiating is terrible, I'd rather this than the Premier League which is so hard to watch now as there is just endless debate.
What's worse, is everytime VAR does get involved, all the experts and pundits, plus those on ttter say how they got it wrong. For about a week after we get endless discussion about it, rather than the game or result itself.
The game in my view was never meant to be a game of science. It's a sport.
I support a team in League One (Reading unfortunately), and although the standard of officiating is terrible, I'd rather this than the Premier League which is so hard to watch now as there is just endless debate.
What's worse, is everytime VAR does get involved, all the experts and pundits, plus those on t
tter say how they got it wrong. For about a week after we get endless discussion about it, rather than the game or result itself. redrabbit29 said:
I said before, I'd rather see some mistakes from referees but a game of spontaneity and passion. Rather than what feels like every goal met with "Oh there's a VAR check", then double celebrations, or worse, no celebrations (by one team at least) as it's been overturned.
The game in my view was never meant to be a game of science. It's a sport.
I support a team in League One (Reading unfortunately), and although the standard of officiating is terrible, I'd rather this than the Premier League which is so hard to watch now as there is just endless debate.
What's worse, is everytime VAR does get involved, all the experts and pundits, plus those on ttter say how they got it wrong. For about a week after we get endless discussion about it, rather than the game or result itself.
Amen!The game in my view was never meant to be a game of science. It's a sport.
I support a team in League One (Reading unfortunately), and although the standard of officiating is terrible, I'd rather this than the Premier League which is so hard to watch now as there is just endless debate.
What's worse, is everytime VAR does get involved, all the experts and pundits, plus those on t
tter say how they got it wrong. For about a week after we get endless discussion about it, rather than the game or result itself. LF5335 said:
TwigtheWonderkid said:
That will mean someone who is judged to be onside by the current lines, but was actually offside had the picture been taken at the exact moment the ball was kicked, will appear to be more comfortably onside, when he was in reality off. Given people wanted VAR to "get the big calls right", I'm not sure that's the answer.
No it won’t. I haven’t suggested at any point that the exact moment that the ball leaves the passing player’s foot will be identified. I don’t think it ever could be. As a result I’m suggesting that a margin of error is factored in to account for them not being able to identify the exact moment. The only thing that will happen is that the players currently being given off side my millimetres will now be deemed onside. Those currently being seen as offside by a larger margin will be deemed less offside, but still offside. If the lines are drawn just before the ball is kicked, and the forward is a tiny bit offside, then when the ball was actually kicked, he would have been further offside.
You're assuming a player a fraction offside would have been onside at the exact millisecond the ball was kicked. No, he might have been well offside when the ball was actually kicked.
How is that getting the big calls right.
TwigtheWonderkid said:
Given that the error can be either way, lines drawn from before the ball was kicked or after the ball was kicked, it could mean that your margin of error is working the wrong way. A player shown offside by a tiny margin that are currently given offside and under your system are given onside, might in reality be even more offside than the lines show.
If the lines are drawn just before the ball is kicked, and the forward is a tiny bit offside, then when the ball was actually kicked, he would have been further offside.
You're assuming a player a fraction offside would have been onside at the exact millisecond the ball was kicked. No, he might have been well offside when the ball was actually kicked.
How is that getting the big calls right.
Great, you just keep repeating this and I’m sure it will make sense to you, because it makes no sense to me at all. The thicker lines create a margin for error. That’s it. They don’t suddenly make onside players offside, that would be impossible. What they might and probably will do is mean a player who is currently deemed offside by millimimetres would now get a bit of benefit of doubt and their goal would stand. If the lines are drawn just before the ball is kicked, and the forward is a tiny bit offside, then when the ball was actually kicked, he would have been further offside.
You're assuming a player a fraction offside would have been onside at the exact millisecond the ball was kicked. No, he might have been well offside when the ball was actually kicked.
How is that getting the big calls right.
I repeat, I am making no judgment at all on being able to identify the precise moment that the ball leaves the passing players foot. That continues as it is now, as it’s a best endeavours basis and nothing more. Add thicker lines and you have a margin for error.
You’re overthinking this in your desperation to be right. Nobody likes VAR, we’d all like it gone, it it never will be so the suggestion is merely to try to improve the implementation and use of it.
The rule makers can sort out the handball farce in the meantime.
LF5335 said:
TwigtheWonderkid said:
But they can make offside players onside. So much for getting the big calls right.
This is the most ridiculous discussion ever. TwigtheWonderkid said:
But they can make offside players onside. So much for getting the big calls right.
Simply wrong. A player is offside when his toe (for example) is beyond the line, by making the line thicker his toe would then be covered by the line and he is onside. Go have a think about it.
Rumblestripe said:
TwigtheWonderkid said:
But they can make offside players onside. So much for getting the big calls right.
Simply wrong. A player is offside when his toe (for example) is beyond the line, by making the line thicker his toe would then be covered by the line and he is onside. Go have a think about it.
We all agree there's an issue as the lines aren't drawn from the exact moment the ball is kicked. 16 frames per second or whatever. Now let's say that in a particular call, the photo was taken / lines are drawn a few milliseconds BEFORE the pass to the attacker was made, and the lines , as they are now, show him a fraction offside. Currently, he's given offside, by a toenail or whatever. Now had the tech existed to draw the lines at the correct moment, a few milliseconds later, he would have been more clearly offside, because he would have been a few milliseconds further ahead of the last defender. If the defender was moving away from the goal to play the attacker offside, taking the pic at the correct time would have given an even bigger difference, as the attacker would have been a bit closer to the goal and the defender a bit further away. His whole body may have been off. But your thicker lines may well judge him to be on.
You're assuming if the attacker was offside by a tiny amount, taking the pic at the correct time would show him to be on. Only if the pic was taken late. If the pic was taken early, then taking it at the correct time would show him further offside.
Edited by TwigtheWonderkid on Tuesday 2nd July 16:21
TwigtheWonderkid said:
Rumblestripe said:
TwigtheWonderkid said:
But they can make offside players onside. So much for getting the big calls right.
Simply wrong. A player is offside when his toe (for example) is beyond the line, by making the line thicker his toe would then be covered by the line and he is onside. Go have a think about it.
We all agree there's an issue as the lines aren't drawn from the exact moment the ball is kicked. 16 frames per second or whatever. Now let's say that in a particular call, the photo was taken / lines are drawn a few milliseconds BEFORE the pass to the attacker was made, and the lines , as they are now, show him a fraction offside. Currently, he's given offside, by a toenail or whatever. Now had the tech existed to draw the lines at the correct moment, a few milliseconds later, he would have been more clearly offside, because he would have been a few milliseconds further ahead of the last defender. If the defender was moving away from the goal to play the attacker offside, taking the pic at the correct time would have given an even bigger difference, as the attacker would have been a bit closer to the goal and the defender a bit further away. His whole body may have been off. But your thicker lines may well judge him to be on.
You're assuming if the attacker was offside by a tiny amount, taking the pic at the correct time would show him to be on. Only if the pic was taken late. If the pic was taken early, then taking it at the correct time would show him further offside.
Edited by TwigtheWonderkid on Tuesday 2nd July 16:21
And ditto handball as well - VAR gets the flack when actually a lot of the problem is with the rule it's being used to enforce. For me there should be intent - and evidence of it being hand to ball - in order to award penalties or free kicks but that's not the way the law's worded at the moment. The penalty awarded against Denmark the other night was a complete nonsense as far as I'm concerned but I don't blame VAR, I blame the rule it's being expected to interpret and apply.
TwigtheWonderkid said:
Rumblestripe said:
TwigtheWonderkid said:
But they can make offside players onside. So much for getting the big calls right.
Simply wrong. A player is offside when his toe (for example) is beyond the line, by making the line thicker his toe would then be covered by the line and he is onside. Go have a think about it.
We all agree there's an issue as the lines aren't drawn from the exact moment the ball is kicked. 16 frames per second or whatever. Now let's say that in a particular call, the photo was taken / lines are drawn a few milliseconds BEFORE the pass to the attacker was made, and the lines , as they are now, show him a fraction offside. Currently, he's given offside, by a toenail or whatever. Now had the tech existed to draw the lines at the correct moment, a few milliseconds later, he would have been more clearly offside, because he would have been a few milliseconds further ahead of the last defender. If the defender was moving away from the goal to play the attacker offside, taking the pic at the correct time would have given an even bigger difference, as the attacker would have been a bit closer to the goal and the defender a bit further away. His whole body may have been off. But your thicker lines may well judge him to be on.
You're assuming if the attacker was offside by a tiny amount, taking the pic at the correct time would show him to be on. Only if the pic was taken late. If the pic was taken early, then taking it at the correct time would show him further offside.
Edited by TwigtheWonderkid on Tuesday 2nd July 16:21
Yes, you are correct that more accurately detecting the instant that the ball is kicked (perhaps integrating the "snickometer" with the video footage) might make a player offside who might otherwise be on. But if we take the centre point of the line (thick or thin) as that moment then the thickness of the line allows for a margin of error (the thicker the line the greater the margin) there is no way that a thicker line would make a player offside who would otherwise be onside.
Gassing Station | Football | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff