The Ref Stop

City v Sheff United

Status
Not open for further replies.
GraemeS said:
Depends on at what point in the process you apply the C&O criteria really.

Look at a still picture and I agree, you can apply the C&O criteria and you'll probably end up going with the on-pitch decision in most cases. But you're then introducing loads of subjective factors, including the confidence of the VAR and the relationship between the VAR and the referee. That means inconsistent decisions, and the risk of getting one wrong when the TV companies later draw lines on the picture and prove that even the VAR got the decision wrong (as I believe happened in Australia?)

Alternately, take that still picture, draw "factual" lines on it using the best framerate, best picture quality and the best AI avaliable and then apply C&O at that point. One line will be in front of the other - it doesn't matter by how much, it will still be clear and obvious what the decision should be.

You can tell me the tech isn't good enough, it's still the same tech for everyone and will therefore add consistency. And it will get better and quicker over the years. It takes any question of who the VAR is out of the mix and although it might not feel it, it's fair. If the result is that things are being judged offside that don't "feel" offside, then that's a problem with the offside law, not the concept of VAR!
Click to expand...

I can't recall it being wrong here, other than that time our Grand Final was decided by a goal that was offside that wasn't overturned by the VAR, because the feed to the VAR cut out for 5 minutes, which happened to be when the goal was scored. Linesman was told to keep the flag down if it was marginal because VAR would pick it up, and voila: Farce is cooked up.
 
The Ref Stop
zarathustra said:
The protocol was always that VAR should be used to correct clear and obvious errors.

In the case of offside I take that to mean that it should only be overturning decisions where the assistant made a clear and obvious error when ruling whether someone is on or offside.

While there will always be a level of subjectivity to any decision, the fact it is clear and obvious should mean we are looking at inches and feet offside, rather than mm.

IFAB released a statement saying that if you need to review 12 cameras to check whether someone is a few mm offside then the infield decision should stand.
Click to expand...
But "12 cameras" isn't really what's happening is it? They're flicking through a few cameras to find the best angle, using the AI to draw lines on that angle and then you have a clear and obvious answer one way or the other.

I get that the process you're proposing: Flick through a few pictures, have a man look at a screen and go "yeah, he's probably offside" has a nice simple appeal, but it's still subjective and will still lead to mistakes. And as soon as someone takes 3 minutes to look at some pictures and communicate that to the referee and is then later proven wrong (by TV companies doing exactly what the VAR currently does BTW), you're back to where we started with demands for more accuracy and "better" officials.

The current process might be slow, but that will get quicker with use. It might be less precise that it pretends to be, but that will get better with tech improvements. And it might be coming up with results that don't feel right - but that's because all it's doing is showing us that the offside law as written does not match with what football expects. That's not a VAR problem, that's a LAW problem.
 
WiisardNic said:
I can't recall it being wrong here, other than that time our Grand Final was decided by a goal that was offside that wasn't overturned by the VAR, because the feed to the VAR cut out for 5 minutes, which happened to be when the goal was scored. Linesman was told to keep the flag down if it was marginal because VAR would pick it up, and voila: Farce is cooked up.
Click to expand...
Fair enough, I'm only referencing something someone else said in a different thread on here.
 
GraemeS said:
But "12 cameras" isn't really what's happening is it? They're flicking through a few cameras to find the best angle, using the AI to draw lines on that angle and then you have a clear and obvious answer one way or the other.


I get that the process you're proposing: Flick through a few pictures, have a man look at a screen and go "yeah, he's probably offside" has a nice simple appeal, but it's still subjective and will still lead to mistakes. And as soon as someone takes 3 minutes to look at some pictures and communicate that to the referee and is then later proven wrong (by TV companies doing exactly what the VAR currently does BTW), you're back to where we started with demands for more accuracy and "better" officials.

The current process might be slow, but that will get quicker with use. It might be less precise that it pretends to be, but that will get better with tech improvements. And it might be coming up with results that don't feel right - but that's because all it's doing is showing us that the offside law as written does not match with what football expects. That's not a VAR problem, that's a LAW problem.
Click to expand...
These educated guesses though are killing everything football is made for, the number one, the fans. You can’t celebrate a goal, you’re left clueless in the stands, the game is a nonsense!
4 minutes to determine Lunstram at Spurs was wearing clown feet size 25s and the defenders feet were real size! Come on, it’s a farce!
 
Justylove said:
This season the fans are singing "F**k VAR".

2 years ago they were singing "The referees a W****r" and "You don't know what you're doing"

Fans wanted technology because they wanted 2 things:

1) The right decisions 100% of the time
2) Consistency, not just within the 90 minutes, but also across the season with different referees.

Technology is delivering those things, but it's proving to be at the cost of enjoyment of the game for those watching.

However, let's be clear, the real driver for getting decisions right, no matter how long it takes is money. Last season the difference between 8th and 10th in the Prem was almost £6m. Potentially in a tight season a VAR decision could impact final placings.

Then you have decisions that could impact whether clubs get into the CL or not, or at the other end drop out of the Prem entirely.

My view, VAR is here to stay, and will continue to be a source of contention, fans will continue to hate it, but football is protecting commercial interests above all else.
Click to expand...

Technology is NOT delivering right decisions 100% of the time - that is patent nonsense - that is and always will be an impossibility.
 
Big Cat said:
There is a thing called 'The Law of Big Numbers'
Each team will face over a hundred KMIs over the course of a season. No one KMI is solely responsible for anything. The problem is psychology. Fans, pundits, players, managers... they all want to pin everything on one incident; usually the most recent scandal. We all do it
The reality however, is that the longer the season goes on for, the less the table is influenced by KMI's. Every season, there'll be winners and losers, but the the variation flattens out as each team faces more and more KMIs. The end result is that the corrections made by VAR, won't count for much because maths largely takes care of it (because the end-result is ironed out without VAR); only without all this hysteria

I'm not on board with, 'fans wanted this' etc. etc.
I don't think I was knocking on the door at my local PGMOL branch. If I was, I've changed my mind. Why can't the masses change their minds too?
Click to expand...

Spot on re the 'one' decision approach. Newcastle oppo the other day incorrectly awarded a corner. That was taken, resulted in another corner and THEN a free kick that oppo scored from and guess what Steve Bruce blamed the original (incorrect) decision for the goal!
 
GraemeS said:
Depends on at what point in the process you apply the C&O criteria really.

Look at a still picture and I agree, you can apply the C&O criteria and you'll probably end up going with the on-pitch decision in most cases. But you're then introducing loads of subjective factors, including the confidence of the VAR and the relationship between the VAR and the referee. That means inconsistent decisions, and the risk of getting one wrong when the TV companies later draw lines on the picture and prove that even the VAR got the decision wrong (as I believe happened in Australia?)

Alternately, take that still picture, draw "factual" lines on it using the best framerate, best picture quality and the best AI avaliable and then apply C&O at that point. One line will be in front of the other - it doesn't matter by how much, it will still be clear and obvious what the decision should be.

You can tell me the tech isn't good enough, it's still the same tech for everyone and will therefore add consistency. And it will get better and quicker over the years. It takes any question of who the VAR is out of the mix and although it might not feel it, it's fair. If the result is that things are being judged offside that don't "feel" offside, then that's a problem with the offside law, not the concept of VAR!
Click to expand...

Agree with most but not sure you can pin your hat on technology getting 'better' - definition 'may' do but speed isn't - no way to speed up looking at something from multiple angles and drawing lines.

Take your point about media adding own lines later, but they did that with the 'incorrect human' offsides anyway.

I'm with Danny Murphy as I said previously - 20 seconds maximum, 2 views, no lines and on we go.

If hours after the games has finished, MOTD/Sky/BT etc want to 'prove' it was offside - so be it - it will be small proportion of the small proportion of offside decisions that are reviewed.
 
Are we talking decisions which are "right" or decisions which are correct because those can be completely different things.

I reckon GLT probably has a success rate of close to if not exactly 100% accuracy.
 
Justylove said:
Why?
Click to expand...

Where do we start

1) Some decisions in case of fouls, most, decisions are subjective - seen this countless times on here, we're all referees, seen the incident numerous times from the comfort of home and we STILL can't agree - hiw do you define 'correct' in those circumstances?

2) Are you seriously proposing reviewing ALL decisions in your quest for '100% accuracy'

3) So many decisions even after review, referees on here are still calling 'wrong' - see point 1 above.

This has nothing to do with banging the anti VAR drum - its an impossible dream - Arsenal v Chelsea or The Red Lion v Cloggers United - NO game contains 100% 'correct' decisions.
 
Justylove said:
The why is "why can't technology get it right 100% of the time?" Or better than without?
Click to expand...

Because you can't review every decision!

On the 2mm offside - people are saying offside is offside - but 6 seconds is 6 seconds - totally ignored.

Majority of free kicks are not taken exactly where the offence took place, no throw in taken exactly where the ball left the fop, but offside IS 2mm offside even if, as discussed ad nauseum, the pictures are not accurate to 2mm?

I don't see any reason to change the law because, just like it doesn't matter if GK takes 7 seconds to release or a free kick miles from goal is taken 2/3 yards in the 'wrong' place then a fuzzy picture showing a player MAY have been 2mm offside should also be ignored.
 
WiisardNic said:
I can't recall it being wrong here, other than that time our Grand Final was decided by a goal that was offside that wasn't overturned by the VAR, because the feed to the VAR cut out for 5 minutes, which happened to be when the goal was scored. Linesman was told to keep the flag down if it was marginal because VAR would pick it up, and voila: Farce is cooked up.
Click to expand...

If ARs are told that in Australia, then Australia has adopted its own protocols contrary to the VAR concept. ARs are supposed to DELAY the flag on close OS calls, not to keep the flag down. If Australia is following the protocol of the rest of the world (excluding PL, which flags immediately), if the AR thought it was OS, he would have flagged when the goal was scored and the IFK would have been awarded.
 
@WiisardNic the offside goal in 2018 grand final was not flagged because the AR didn't think it was offside, not because he was told to keep the flag down. Australia follows the protocol. They were just not good at it (getting better). Almost as bad as EPL not following the protocol.
 
socal lurker said:
If ARs are told that in Australia, then Australia has adopted its own protocols contrary to the VAR concept. ARs are supposed to DELAY the flag on close OS calls, not to keep the flag down. If Australia is following the protocol of the rest of the world (excluding PL, which flags immediately), if the AR thought it was OS, he would have flagged when the goal was scored and the IFK would have been awarded.
Click to expand...

one said:
@WiisardNic the offside goal in 2018 grand final was not flagged because the AR didn't think it was offside, not because he was told to keep the flag down. Australia follows the protocol. They were just not good at it (getting better). Almost as bad as EPL not following the protocol.
Click to expand...

Yeah that about makes more sense
 
one said:
@WiisardNic the offside goal in 2018 grand final was not flagged because the AR didn't think it was offside, not because he was told to keep the flag down. Australia follows the protocol. They were just not good at it (getting better). Almost as bad as EPL not following the protocol.
Click to expand...

I think that’s been a challenge everywhere—it’s reallynhard to break the muscle memory of flagging as soon as the offense occurs. And made worse, because it’s only sometimes that they are supposed to delay. In the MLS public ally available week in review for ARs, it’s been a constant theme of getting when to delay or not delay right. Seems very hard to do really well.
 
bloovee said:
Utterly mad. Law drafted and immediately countermanded. The phrase "gains control/possession" is redundant before the ink is dry.
Click to expand...
Not sure I agree - I think it's just the IFAB acknowledging the way the law should probably have been written in the first place. I think the idea that an accidental handball shouldn't be allowed to create a goal (assuming you even subscribe to that view in the first place) should include the scenario where the ball drops directly to a team mate who then scores.

I have to say I'm not a big fan of the idea but if you're going to implement it, I think including this particular wrinkle to it makes sense and is, as they say, in the spirit of this new law amendment.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top