Man City v Villa

[bloovee]

City's second goal ...

VAR took an age. I was level and didn't realise how close in front of the GK Sterling was (had to twist his body to let the ball pass). Cross came in from De Bruyne with Sterling in an onside position. Silva took a swing at the ball, when Sterling was in an offside position. It then went past Sterling and into the goal.

So it looks like the VAR process went:

1. Was Sterling in an offside position when De Bruyne played it? No.
2. Was Sterling in an offside position if/when Silva played it? Yes.
3. Was Sterling in the keeper's line of vision? Yes.
4. Did Silva touch it? We keep replaying it, and we can't say that he does. Goal.

But then the dubious goals panel give it to Silva....

So from the Premier League we get the following:

"After review, the Goal Accreditation Panel have awarded Man City’s second goal to David Silva.
The Goal Accreditation Panel is an independent entity which has no affiliation with VAR."

 

[Big Cat]

Driving home from my game (45 mins), 5 Live was dominated by VAR and every contributor (of which there were plenty), were pretty damning of VAR, even strongly suggesting it should be re-branded! PGMOL have made as much of a hash of it as everyone else

 

[alexgr]

How can the goal accreditation panel give it to Silva if VAR can’t find conclusive proof? What have the former seen that the latter haven’t?

 

[Sheffields Finest]

How can the goal accreditation panel give it to Silva if VAR can’t find conclusive proof? What have the former seen that the latter haven’t?

Makes perfect sense to me!!!

 

[Tealeaf]

How can the goal accreditation panel give it to Silva if VAR can’t find conclusive proof? What have the former seen that the latter haven’t?

He was insistent he touched it, a bit like a Tottenham player recently. Let’s call it the “Kane Precedent”

TBH the only way to be definitive in cases like this is to have something like UltraEdge that the cricket uses. How that would work in practice is beyond me

 

[one]

If this had ultra high definition high speed camera it would have been much easier and accurate. I have said this before, technology used is not sufficient for VAR. Similarly a VAR offside check can have a margin of error of over a foot.

 

[alexgr]

He was insistent he touched it, a bit like a Tottenham player recently. Let’s call it the “Kane Precedent”

TBH the only way to be definitive in cases like this is to have something like UltraEdge that the cricket uses. How that would work in practice is beyond me

Agree but irrespective, if they’ve adjudicated that Silva touched the ball, they must have had a clear angle? So why hasn’t VAR had access to that? Or if they did, why weren’t they able to come to the same decision?

 

[onthebrink]

Agree but irrespective, if they’ve adjudicated that Silva touched the ball, they must have had a clear angle? So why hasn’t VAR had access to that? Or if they did, why weren’t they able to come to the same decision?

Apparently two people on the panel thought it was Silva's goal and the other thought it was De Bruyne's.

I guess it is one of those where if the higher percentage says it is Silva's goal then they can go with that as the goal scorer. But if the VAR's only 66% percent sure that Silva touched it then it's not enough to disallow the goal.

 

[Peter Grove]

How can the goal accreditation panel give it to Silva if VAR can’t find conclusive proof? What have the former seen that the latter haven’t?

Because, as stated:

The Goal Accreditation Panel is an independent entity which has no affiliation with VAR.

 

[alexgr]

Because, as stated:

You're missing the point. Why hasn't VAR got access to the same feeds an independent panel does? If we're using it to make decisions, it should have access to every angle possible!

 

[socal lurker]

You're missing the point. Why hasn't VAR got access to the same feeds an independent panel does? If we're using it to make decisions, it should have access to every angle possible!

What makes you think they had a different feed?

The fact they reached a different conclusion doesn't mean they were looking at different pictures. While it feels unseemly that they had different conclusions, they were presumably using different standards. VAR was looking for conclusive evidence of an error. The GAP is looking for who should best be credited with the goal--I would imagine their standard on awarding credit for the goal on the deflection is a much lower standard ("most likely"?).

 

[alexgr]

What makes you think they had a different feed?

The fact they reached a different conclusion doesn't mean they were looking at different pictures. While it feels unseemly that they had different conclusions, they were presumably using different standards. VAR was looking for conclusive evidence of an error. The GAP is looking for who should best be credited with the goal--I would imagine their standard on awarding credit for the goal on the deflection is a much lower standard ("most likely"?).

Exactly, so one is guessing.

 

[socal lurker]

Exactly, so one is guessing.

I don't know that "guessing" is the right term. I'd think of it more like the legal system. The VAR has to see proof beyond a reasonable doubt, similar to the criminal standard. But the GAP (I'm guessing) has to decide what is more likely than not, similar to the civil standard--they have to give someone credit for the goal. But I agree that in this case the contrast is a bit unseemly, as if its true, the goal should not have stood. (Given that, if they even realized that, I think it would have made more sense to give the shooter the goal. But no one asked me.)

 

[Peter Grove]

You're missing the point. Why hasn't VAR got access to the same feeds an independent panel does? If we're using it to make decisions, it should have access to every angle possible!

The VAR team has access to all broadcast feeds. This is required by the protocol. The thing is that with the independent panel, we don't know what sources or methodology they use. They are very possibly not relying on video evidence alone. In this case for instance, they may be relying on the fact that Silva himself, seemed to be indicating he had touched the ball.

According to the reports, it was a majority view by a panel and they didn't all believe that it definitely came off Silva's foot, so they obviously didn't have absolutely definitive evidence or it would have been a unanimous decision. It looks as if they are going for a decision on the basis of, 'This is what we think most probably happened,' rather than the relative certainty that a VAR decision would require.