The Ref Stop

Fulham v Liverpool

Donate to RefChat

Help keep RefChat running, any donation would be appreciated

The Ref Stop
Semi-automated not fit for purpose.

That's not an optical illusion.

If the 5cm tolerance, and choice of frame, can't decide it, just get a ruler out.
 
Surely any built in tolerance should dictate that if it is within the tolerance the on field decision stands, not that it’s onside?
 
bloovee said:
Semi-automated not fit for purpose.

That's not an optical illusion.

If the 5cm tolerance, and choice of frame, can't decide it, just get a ruler out.
Click to expand...

Or as Dale Johnson says, the TV broadcast point of contact when they think the ball has been kicked and the VAR's version can potentially not match up leading to potential situations like this where one frame rate could make the difference between looking offside and being level.

Blame the club's because they want to keep the tolerance level despite the PL boasting they have got the best SAOT out there. I really dislike not coming into line though because some of the images can be deceiving really.
 
RefereeX said:
Surely any built in tolerance should dictate that if it is within the tolerance the on field decision stands, not that it’s onside?
Click to expand...
But offside is supposed to be an objective decision so there's no "C&O error" criterion. Which is daft, when it looks like the onfield decision wasn't even an error let alone C&O.
 
Paul_10 said:
Or as Dale Johnson says, the TV broadcast point of contact when they think the ball has been kicked and the VAR's version can potentially not match up leading to potential situations like this where one frame rate could make the difference between looking offside and being level.

Blame the club's because they want to keep the tolerance level despite the PL boasting they have got the best SAOT out there. I really dislike not coming into line though because some of the images can be deceiving really.
Click to expand...
And if "when the ball is played" is so imprecise that a VAR can choose whether to call onside or offside by a flick of a switch, that's rather a big responsibility. With the large "tolerance" to be applied in favour of the attack, plus frame manipulation, the sooner we get fully automated (and instant) offside decisions the better, then at least we can rage at the machine.
 
Looks dodgy
In the minds of many football fans, VAR encourages a conspiracy theory mindset and corruption claims
It was much easier for them to accept on-field decisions than it is to swallow VAR controversy. And yes... I know 'they wanted technology'. They/we/I did not play the tape forward and seriously consider the implications. They/we/I were wrong for what we wanted. They/we/I now have wisdom, but the owners (money) decide what's best for the game
 
Last edited:
i personally really like building in 'tolerance' - it' makes sense, and i'd advocate making the tolerance zone bigger.

clearly though the communication on this to the most important stakeholders has been poor - i was watching in the pub before the city match yesterday and we could all see it 'looked off' - there needs to be a change to the traffic light system they use (use orange?) to highlight where the tolerance has been used?
 
I understand all the points made but what frustrates me is that clubs, players & spectators didn’t like it with toenail offsides and now when some tolerance is included (we could argue all day about the level of tolerance) the same bodies are complaining. Nothing appears any good unless there is a positive impact for their team.
 
DavidObs said:
I understand all the points made but what frustrates me is that clubs, players & spectators didn’t like it with toenail offsides and now when some tolerance is included (we could argue all day about the level of tolerance) the same bodies are complaining. Nothing appears any good unless there is a positive impact for their team.
Click to expand...
that was always the case though! VAR or otherwise and that will 100% never ever ever ever change

could have been new directives, strives for consistency, professional refs...any club/fan can twist outcomes to suit their agenda. sure i've been guilty of that on occasion!
 
es1 said:
that was always the case though! VAR or otherwise and that will 100% never ever ever ever change

could have been new directives, strives for consistency, professional refs...any club/fan can twist outcomes to suit their agenda. sure i've been guilty of that on occasion!
Click to expand...
True though it’s only VAR that knew it was only a toe-nail (or something to that effect). An AR would only signal when without VAR if he/she actually believed there was a bit of distance albeit small (but not mega minute).
 
The obvious difference with this one is one of the players is exactly on the grass cut line, that isn't usually the case so we don't have reference mark like we do in this case. Although we don't know those grass lines are completely parallel to the goal line, and we don't know if the image the broadcasters used is from the exact same frame that VAR used.

I've seen lots of conspiracy theories on social media saying there is no 5cm rule and it was only because Liverpool scored that they used it, but that is nonsense as Dale Johnson did a BBC article about it weeks ago. It strikes me the problem is why there needs to be a 5cm tolerance, other countries and competitions that use SAOT have got rid of any tolerance as they trust the tech. For reasons only they know the EPL and PGMO decided to develop their own technology and obviously they don't trust it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top