A&H

Leicester v Arsenal

bloovee said:
No complaints about the DOGSO, though you might wonder if Mr Mason had been watching the earlier game where DOGSO wasn't given. It really is daft that VAR just reinforces errors because "clear and obvious" is clearly and obviously woolly as a definition (clear and obvious to most people or just to VARs in Stockley Park)? (And what happened to last week's stuff about the desire to keep 11 players on the pitch?)

The Palace timewasting from the first goal kick was painful. How many times should a ref make a wind-up "get on with it" signal to a GK before getting the card out?

And taking 2 minutes to decide an offside does feed the idea that if it takes that long to choose a frame that shows the player in an offside position, that's too long. The pic below is not the one VAR chose (player given offside is at bottom of frame).

View attachment 5277
He went for this one:

View attachment 5279
Click to expand...
With my naked eye, blue player is offside in both those pics, a little less so in the top one. Don't let the camera angle play tricks on you.
 
The Referee Store
bloovee said:
No complaints about the DOGSO, though you might wonder if Mr Mason had been watching the earlier game where DOGSO wasn't given. It really is daft that VAR just reinforces errors because "clear and obvious" is clearly and obviously woolly as a definition (clear and obvious to most people or just to VARs in Stockley Park)? (And what happened to last week's stuff about the desire to keep 11 players on the pitch?)

The Palace timewasting from the first goal kick was painful. How many times should a ref make a wind-up "get on with it" signal to a GK before getting the card out?

And taking 2 minutes to decide an offside does feed the idea that if it takes that long to choose a frame that shows the player in an offside position, that's too long. The pic below is not the one VAR chose (player given offside is at bottom of frame).

View attachment 5277
He went for this one:

View attachment 5279
Click to expand...
I had to fact check this and as it turns out, VAR actually used the frame you wanted to be used. That's the one with the kicking foot still behind the planted foot. I guess we can put this one to bed.

Screenshot_20211102-010404__01.jpg
 
I assume that EPL has at least as good of technology as MLS does. In MLS, the various views are all time linked, so the VAR can watch (including slowing down and stopping) the feed on four camera angles simultaneously. So the VAR would not be using this view to identify the point of contact, but would be using the angle that was most focused on the kicker. Once the moment of contact is determined and marked, the VAR would turn to the image best showing whether there was OSP.
 
socal lurker said:
I assume that EPL has at least as good of technology as MLS does. In MLS, the various views are all time linked, so the VAR can watch (including slowing down and stopping) the feed on four camera angles simultaneously. So the VAR would not be using this view to identify the point of contact, but would be using the angle that was most focused on the kicker. Once the moment of contact is determined and marked, the VAR would turn to the image best showing whether there was OSP.
Click to expand...
How long does that take in MLS?
 
bloovee said:
How long does that take in MLS?
Click to expand...
Like everything, it varies. But since they get all four feeds linked, I think it is faster finding the initial contact of the kick point on a view that is most zoomed with a good angle than trying to sort it on the wide angle where the ball and foot are tiny.

While MLS has a way to go in many areas, including improving overall officiating, from what I have seen, I think it is actually elite in how it has handles VAR--along with the largely transparent review of each VAR referral that is made public weekly (well, more or less weekly).
 
bloovee said:
I'm a bit confused. That's not the one I wanted.
Click to expand...
You had two images in your post #20. Which one did you want to be used?

Compare kicker's feet position to the image I posted from VAR to see which of your images were used.

Your first image: kicking foot behind planted foot
Your second image: kicking foot in front of planted foot
VAR image: kicking foot behind planted foot

VAR image is the same as your first image. Hope this clarifies the confusion.
 
In terms of time, it didn't actually take VAR two minutes. From goal to restart was two minutes. How long it took VAR depends which way you look at it.

Goal to offside signal was 1.5 minutes.

Time wasted due to VAR possibly one minute. As without VAR there would have still been some delay to the restart (kick off or offside). Still too long for me.
 
one said:
You had two images in your post #20. Which one did you want to be used?

Compare kicker's feet position to the image I posted from VAR to see which of your images were used.

Your first image: kicking foot behind planted foot
Your second image: kicking foot in front of planted foot
VAR image: kicking foot behind planted foot

VAR image is the same as your first image. Hope this clarifies the confusion.
Click to expand...
Even more confused now...

In #20 I was asking why the first one was not used. That's not the VAR image. Indeed, there appear to be three different images! In the one I said VAR used, you can see the foot that played the ball; in the VAR image that you posted the ball obscures the foot.

Frankly, unless social lurker is right that MLS first establishes where whoever played the ball made first contact with the foot (AND that PGMOL VAR does the same), then you can't really blame fans * for thinking it's too close to call, therefore should not be called. * well, City fans.

There is one big difference - MLS explain VAR decisions, PGMOL erect a wall of silence. Of course it's easier not to have anyone try and justify (e.g.) comparable DOGSO decisions.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top