Seems OK to me. If they can speed it up just a bit to 15 - 20 seconds we won't need to know it's there.
Might have been confused by Real Madrid's disallowed goal against Liverpool so it cannot be fully automatic without changing the laws. (Did the Liverpool player deliberately play the ball - even he probably doesn't know!)
But the need for a "500 times per second" inertial sensor in the ball proves the current VAR system is a complete farce!
A player can move 2mm in 1/500th of a second and that is accurate enough for me.
But you cannot possibly tell the "exact" moment a player kicks a ball by simply looking at it on a TV screen. The error margin involved is an order of magnitude greater than those ridiculous thin lines the VAR men put on the screen.
Why is the lack of a “tolerance level” a bad thing? If you’re offside then you’re offside. The only reason you would need to create “tolerance levels” is if you couldn’t conclusively determine that someone is offside but, if this technology does what it’s supposed to, now we will be able to accurately say when someone’s off.
Why is the lack of a “tolerance level” a bad thing? If you’re offside then you’re offside. The only reason you would need to create “tolerance levels” is if you couldn’t conclusively determine that someone is offside but, if this technology does what it’s supposed to, now we will be able to accurately say when someone’s off.
Every system must have some tolerance level! Even atomic clocks are accurate to within.... whatever.
Why is the lack of a “tolerance level” a bad thing? If you’re offside then you’re offside. The only reason you would need to create “tolerance levels” is if you couldn’t conclusively determine that someone is offside but, if this technology does what it’s supposed to, now we will be able to accurately say when someone’s off.
This is still the wrong question.
VAR and DRS are there to answer "Did the referee/umpire make a clear and obvious error" .... not 'Was it offside or LBW?".
As soon as a decision is borderline, then the question is answered. No, the referee/umpire did not make a clear and obvious error, as the decision is borderline.
How much longer will it take?
Nice that the topic of tolerance levels has also come up. This is an important feature of metrology and is due to the fact that we live in a statistical world. All measurements have an associated error.
That's why all measurements should be quoted with an associated tolerance interval. Otherwise they become relatively meaningless.
Any improvement in the officiating of the rules of the game is a positive.
This isn't VAR its automated offside refereeing. Bit like goal-line technology and no one has complained about that coming into the game. It will probably send a signal to the ref saying 'player x was offside' it would then be up to the referee to decide if he was interfering/the ball was passed by a teammate to him.
The problem with VAR is that it is still being judged by a referee that is making incorrect judgements and decisions.
I am so pleased FIFA have introduced new, artificial intelligence Semi-Automated Offside Technology for VAR at the World Cup. Because the offside law is far too easy to explain as it is.
Thats why we've got useless shite referees in the EFL and Premier League.
Yes its a stupid decision from the linesman, but the way those on the touchline act is fucking ludicrous, I mean they're may as well be in a park, not Wembley Stadium - If that's how referees etc. are getting treated that far down (and that incident is probably as tame as fuck) no wonder there are a lack of officials these days.
Instead the only ones that hang around, are those with Burger Boy personalities, power hungry, bullying twats who get off on having abuse thrown their way because they know they've got control over the situation.
VAR shown up to be a complete shambles last weekend. As some of us said, we were better off without it. There's always going to be human error and a few referee mistakes, it's normal and is better than waiting 5 minutes for a decision that is either wrong/ambiguous anyway
Thats why we've got useless shite referees in the EFL and Premier League.
Yes its a stupid decision from the linesman, but the way those on the touchline act is fucking ludicrous, I mean they're may as well be in a park, not Wembley Stadium - If that's how referees etc. are getting treated that far down (and that incident is probably as tame as fuck) no wonder there are a lack of officials these days.
Instead the only ones that hang around, are those with Burger Boy personalities, power hungry, bullying twats who get off on having abuse thrown their way because they know they've got control over the situation.
When I was a teenager about 15 years ago I took up refereeing, mainly because the match fees were about £25 a game which worked out much better than the £4 an hour my mates were getting waiting tables. Being much fitter than I am now it wasn't unheard of for me to do 3-4 games over a weekend which was a nice little earner especially when it was cash in hand. For the most part it was enjoyable, I got to remain involved in football, it was a good opportunity to keep fit and as a young kid the money came in handy as well.
However the abuse was genuinely something else. Off the top of my head I can think of the following incidents which spring to mind:
- I was pushed to the ground by a player for giving a free kick. I called the match off there and then and had a few of the players come into the changing room after to apologise and ask me to restart the match. Once they got the message that I had no intention of going back out their attitude soon changed and I got dogs abuse as I left and then followed into town as I walked home by a group of players who were obviously trying to intimidate me.
- I had a player absolutely shaking with rage and threatening to smash me up etc to the point his mates had to physically hold him back otherwise I've no doubt he would have got physical with me.
- It was a regular issue that at the end of a match a team would refuse to pay the match fee if they felt decisions had gone against them. Eventually it became such a big issue that the Local FA essentially said teams would be kicked out the league if they refused to pay the match fees.
At the time I was only 15-16, and a young looking one at that, and yet for some reason grown men seemed to think behaviour like that was acceptable.
This was 15 years or so ago now but seeing how society has gone I've no doubt things are probably even worse now. It's no wonder nobody fancies giving up their weekend mornings for that kind of nonsense, as soon as I got a full time job I knocked it on the head and you couldn't pay me enough to even contemplate doing it again.
I know the local amatuer leagues where I live are essentially in crisis in terms of referee numbers and more games than not dont even have a referee anymore because there isn't enough of them and there's little wonder really.
I have always been a supporter of the idea in principle, but not its implementation. I think an appeal system like cricket would work far better but with only one appeal that can only be used for key decisions (goal or sending off) and you get back if right and lose if wrong. The issue is for me a mentality one. It is impossible to make any system perfect and you should aim for making it fairer and better.
The hand ball rule has gone through farcical developments in recent years becuase the authorities have messed about with it to find consistency. When in reality the system of the ref deciding intent was always the right one and yes the judgement of ref will differ as happens with fouls etc... It is a fact of life and if refs are not up to scratch, that has to be made better, not have the laws changed around it.
In terms of the offside rule, it was not designed for the level of accuracy we have now and with the technology, I would give a leeway of two or three inches which the computer could easily apply instantly.
Any improvement in the officiating of the rules of the game is a positive.
This isn't VAR its automated offside refereeing. Bit like goal-line technology and no one has complained about that coming into the game. It will probably send a signal to the ref saying 'player x was offside' it would then be up to the referee to decide if he was interfering/the ball was passed by a teammate to him.
The problem with VAR is that it is still being judged by a referee that is making incorrect judgements and decisions.
…..so still subjective and “being judged by a referee that is making incorrect judgements and decisions” ?
Leverkusen goal ruled out this evening by the semi-automated system. That little black dot at the end of the foot is the part of the body that was deemed to be offside. He was offside by a toe.
Leverkusen goal ruled out this evening by the semi-automated system. That little black dot at the end of the foot is the part of the body that was deemed to be offside. He was offside by a toe.
My question is - was any real advantage gained by the attacking player by being offside by such a small margin as a toe?
Leverkusen goal ruled out this evening by the semi-automated system. That little black dot at the end of the foot is the part of the body that was deemed to be offside. He was offside by a toe.
My question is - was any real advantage gained by the attacking player by being offside by such a small margin as a toe?
Leverkusen goal ruled out this evening by the semi-automated system. That little black dot at the end of the foot is the part of the body that was deemed to be offside. He was offside by a toe.
My question is - was any real advantage gained by the attacking player by being offside by such a small margin as a toe?
What about two toe lengths? or three toe lengths?
where would you stop - Offside is offside
Not debating whether the player was offside or not as he was so let me make that clear. My original question was - did the player gain any real advantage? I believe the offside rule was brought in to stop players goal hanging and gaining an advantage. Happy to be corrected. Either way, being offside by a toe is not clear and obvious.
Would like to see the stats since VAR came in on ;
- How many goals were allowed that otherwise wouldn't have stood; - How many goals were disallowed that otherwise would have stood.
And why we're at it,
- How many red cards were awarded after the intervention of VAR - How many red cards were cancelled after the intervention of VAR
There will always be anomalies and debatable issues as some things just come down to individual opinions, but that's just how it always was.
VAR was "sold" on the basis it would weed out the clear and obvious errors, such as the Thierry Henry handball, or Peter Shirtliff's knee to the back of Ian Baird"s head. It was heralded as being the end of diving to win penalties, shirt pulling at corners, the off the ball punch in the face, etc, that referees just missed. I think most of us were completely behind that as a concept.
But in practice that just isn't what's happening. Which is a real shame as far as I'm concerned as it detracts from the game as I knew and loved it, but no doubt some would view as "progress".
I didn't see the West Ham incident last weekend, but I have not spoken to a single person who agreed with the decison yet. I saw the Sociedad "penalty" last night.
What's the point in this selective decison making process if it still gets it wrong?
VAR should be used for matters of fact, like offside and goal line. It should not be used where matters of opinion are involved. Last weekend's shambles occurred in several matches. The West Ham one was bonkers.
I would be interested to know the communication between the officials last night. It was telling we did not see the ref go and look at it again on a screen. To be honest, there was probably no need to though as all he needed to be told from the VAR team was that the ball defelected onto the arm from another part of the body. But what did they tell him? I suspect UEFA will conduct an investigation and either the ref or the people in the VAR box are going to get into trouble.
There was a clear matter of fact last night, that according to the handball laws, and they are a complete mess, it wasn't a penalty. I have been interested in how we have got into this mess. It is clearly because some refs are not good at interpreting intent. Rather than deal with that, the authorities decided to make it a yes or no thing which even then they can't get right.
It is a bit like the unatural position wording that I think was used to basically say if the hand/arm has been put in a place to potentially block a ball even if it can't realistically be moved out of the way. What we got was some refs trying to decide what an unantural position was probably due to a lack of words in the law. I recall Northern Ireland being punished for that a few years back and yes the arm was in an unnatural position, but when you play football, your arms are often in an unnatural position without you intending them to be.
The main thing that bothers me about VAR is that the VAR ref looks at incidents multiple times in super slow motion. The on-field referee does not get this option. Therefore any decision by the VAR ref should only be made after they see the incident a maximum of number of times (3 maybe?) at normal game speed, from the closest angle to that of the on-field ref. That way it comes back down to whether it was a 'clear and obvious error'.
If a ref makes a decision, and the VAR official suggests he or she look at it again. There is an immediate pressure on the ref to change the decision. It is another reason why I would like to give each team an appeal. If they appeal, it is looked at but there would not be the same pressure. If they have used up their appeal, tough luck. I don't see cricket teams moaning about it when it costs them. It becomes another aspect of the game.
Comments
Might have been confused by Real Madrid's disallowed goal against Liverpool so it cannot be fully automatic without changing the laws. (Did the Liverpool player deliberately play the ball - even he probably doesn't know!)
But the need for a "500 times per second" inertial sensor in the ball proves the current VAR system is a complete farce!
A player can move 2mm in 1/500th of a second and that is accurate enough for me.
But you cannot possibly tell the "exact" moment a player kicks a ball by simply looking at it on a TV screen. The error margin involved is an order of magnitude greater than those ridiculous thin lines the VAR men put on the screen.
VAR and DRS are there to answer "Did the referee/umpire make a clear and obvious error" .... not 'Was it offside or LBW?".
As soon as a decision is borderline, then the question is answered. No, the referee/umpire did not make a clear and obvious error, as the decision is borderline.
How much longer will it take?
Nice that the topic of tolerance levels has also come up. This is an important feature of metrology and is due to the fact that we live in a statistical world. All measurements have an associated error.
That's why all measurements should be quoted with an associated tolerance interval. Otherwise they become relatively meaningless.
This isn't VAR its automated offside refereeing. Bit like goal-line technology and no one has complained about that coming into the game. It will probably send a signal to the ref saying 'player x was offside' it would then be up to the referee to decide if he was interfering/the ball was passed by a teammate to him.
The problem with VAR is that it is still being judged by a referee that is making incorrect judgements and decisions.
Yes its a stupid decision from the linesman, but the way those on the touchline act is fucking ludicrous, I mean they're may as well be in a park, not Wembley Stadium - If that's how referees etc. are getting treated that far down (and that incident is probably as tame as fuck) no wonder there are a lack of officials these days.
Instead the only ones that hang around, are those with Burger Boy personalities, power hungry, bullying twats who get off on having abuse thrown their way because they know they've got control over the situation.
However the abuse was genuinely something else. Off the top of my head I can think of the following incidents which spring to mind:
- I was pushed to the ground by a player for giving a free kick. I called the match off there and then and had a few of the players come into the changing room after to apologise and ask me to restart the match. Once they got the message that I had no intention of going back out their attitude soon changed and I got dogs abuse as I left and then followed into town as I walked home by a group of players who were obviously trying to intimidate me.
- I had a player absolutely shaking with rage and threatening to smash me up etc to the point his mates had to physically hold him back otherwise I've no doubt he would have got physical with me.
- It was a regular issue that at the end of a match a team would refuse to pay the match fee if they felt decisions had gone against them. Eventually it became such a big issue that the Local FA essentially said teams would be kicked out the league if they refused to pay the match fees.
At the time I was only 15-16, and a young looking one at that, and yet for some reason grown men seemed to think behaviour like that was acceptable.
This was 15 years or so ago now but seeing how society has gone I've no doubt things are probably even worse now. It's no wonder nobody fancies giving up their weekend mornings for that kind of nonsense, as soon as I got a full time job I knocked it on the head and you couldn't pay me enough to even contemplate doing it again.
I know the local amatuer leagues where I live are essentially in crisis in terms of referee numbers and more games than not dont even have a referee anymore because there isn't enough of them and there's little wonder really.
The hand ball rule has gone through farcical developments in recent years becuase the authorities have messed about with it to find consistency. When in reality the system of the ref deciding intent was always the right one and yes the judgement of ref will differ as happens with fouls etc... It is a fact of life and if refs are not up to scratch, that has to be made better, not have the laws changed around it.
In terms of the offside rule, it was not designed for the level of accuracy we have now and with the technology, I would give a leeway of two or three inches which the computer could easily apply instantly.
or three toe lengths?
where would you stop - Offside is offside
- How many goals were allowed that otherwise wouldn't have stood;
- How many goals were disallowed that otherwise would have stood.
And why we're at it,
- How many red cards were awarded after the intervention of VAR
- How many red cards were cancelled after the intervention of VAR
There will always be anomalies and debatable issues as some things just come down to individual opinions, but that's just how it always was.
VAR was "sold" on the basis it would weed out the clear and obvious errors, such as the Thierry Henry handball, or Peter Shirtliff's knee to the back of Ian Baird"s head. It was heralded as being the end of diving to win penalties, shirt pulling at corners, the off the ball punch in the face, etc, that referees just missed. I think most of us were completely behind that as a concept.
But in practice that just isn't what's happening. Which is a real shame as far as I'm concerned as it detracts from the game as I knew and loved it, but no doubt some would view as "progress".
What's the point in this selective decison making process if it still gets it wrong?
There was a clear matter of fact last night, that according to the handball laws, and they are a complete mess, it wasn't a penalty. I have been interested in how we have got into this mess. It is clearly because some refs are not good at interpreting intent. Rather than deal with that, the authorities decided to make it a yes or no thing which even then they can't get right.
It is a bit like the unatural position wording that I think was used to basically say if the hand/arm has been put in a place to potentially block a ball even if it can't realistically be moved out of the way. What we got was some refs trying to decide what an unantural position was probably due to a lack of words in the law. I recall Northern Ireland being punished for that a few years back and yes the arm was in an unnatural position, but when you play football, your arms are often in an unnatural position without you intending them to be.