The quote from FIFA - 'Its almost perfect' is just embarrassing.
Apparently, VAR accuracy is 98.8% with average time loss being 55 seconds. That's over 972 competitive matches. If FIFA are using those numbers, I guess I can understand why they've said it is 'almost perfect'.
(SkySports are the source though, don't know how reliable those numbers are.)
Edit: As I say that, IFAB approves it: http://theifab.com/news/historic-step-for-greater-fairness-in-football
Apparently, VAR accuracy is 98.8% with average time loss being 55 seconds. That's over 972 competitive matches. If FIFA are using those numbers, I guess I can understand why they've said it is 'almost perfect'.
(SkySports are the source though, don't know how reliable those numbers are.)
Edit: As I say that, IFAB approves it: http://theifab.com/news/historic-step-for-greater-fairness-in-football
No doubt every time a VAR changes a 50-50 decision is counted as a success. I wonder how they count the ones that VAR takes 2 or more minutes to confirm that the referee was right in the first place. Or do they count a review of a good decision to change it to a bad decision as two errors? We have had plenty of those in Australia.
The problem with that is they used a review for something that was not a 'clear error'. While it may have been accurate, it was a misuse of the system and waste of 2 minutes so an incorrect outcome as far as the image of the game goes.I'm guessing here that everytime they do a VAR and the decision is unchanged, it counts as a 'accurate' decision for VAR?
Apparently, VAR accuracy is 98.8% with average time loss being 55 seconds. That's over 972 competitive matches. If FIFA are using those numbers, I guess I can understand why they've said it is 'almost perfect'.
(SkySports are the source though, don't know how reliable those numbers are.)
Edit: As I say that, IFAB approves it: http://theifab.com/news/historic-step-for-greater-fairness-in-football
Remember that VAR is used to check all goals, YCs and RCs along the way for things like "was there an offside in the lead-up?" and "was the player who was cautioned/sent off the correct player?"
All of those are going to count as correct decisions in their stats. These are also going to be bringing the average/median times of VAR checks down, since most of them will take 5s or less.
The stats when the VAR is visible to the spectators/etc, I'd suspect, are much different.
Whereas with MLS (US/Canada), Bundesliga (Germany), and Liga NOS (Portugal), they're proudly noting that VAR is checked constantly, and that full review is only happening X times per match.I don't think that's it. In the A-league they actually told us how many decisions the VAR has been used for. That's how we know how ridiculously off the figures were because there were clearly a lot of match-changing errors under the scope of VAR that weren't looked at (not to mention how often the VAR looks at one and changes a correct decision to a wrong one)
And with a number like 98.8% they would be wrong on each one of those casesThe problem with the stats presented is that they don't make it clear if they're referring to all checks, just the full review checks, a mix, and when they're using which stats to make their argument better/stronger.