RefSix

Spurs - Chelsea VAR

bester

RefChat Addict
#21
What's the margin of error? Significantly more when they are using the 2D line.

Need to introduce the clear and obvious element to offside decisions with VAR, as the faux 3D image (most accurate) can give a result
that's several inches different to the 2D line.
 

RustyRef

Administrator
Staff member
#22
Not really sure I see the problem here. The image used to make the decision is from a state of the art, professionally calibrated system that is supposed to guarantee correct decisions. The image used to try and show it was wrong is taken from a bloke in the crowd with a camera. I know what I am trusting more.

If we are going to use technology it needs to be trusted, otherwise it just won't work.
 

JH

RefChat Addict
#23
Uh... hence the caution?

If the referee deemed this to be DOGSO, this would still have been a caution because of the attempt to play the ball by the GK.
I was implying SPA, could've been reckless. I don't think it was DOGSO, from memory the ball was pretty much going out?
 

one

RefChat Addict
#24
Even with the state of the art image, you can see that both defender and attacker have their feet more or less on the line. One is leaning forward, the other going back. Its a matter of an inch or two. Unless you have overwhelming evidence that he AR is wrong, you stay with his decision. What I see in that image is not overwhelming evidence one way or other.

There was another FA cap game last year with a similar margin where the tip of the attacker's knee was possibly an inch offside. That was given offside.
 
Likes: JH

JH

RefChat Addict
#25
The image used to make the decision is from a state of the art, professionally calibrated system that is supposed to guarantee correct decisions. The image used to try and show it was wrong is taken from a bloke in the crowd with a camera. I know what I am trusting more.
The professionally calibrated system sticks some lines accurately on the image, it doesn't work out the decision, the lines are manually calibrated in real time. It is very probable Kane is leaning over that line, therefore was offside, no guarantee whatsoever.

The other was not taken from a bloke in the crowd, but from the cameras Chelsea use to analyse the game, clearly not bad quality and looks similar to a tv feed. It offers an angle that probably would have changed the VAR decision.
 
#26
Even with the state of the art image, you can see that both defender and attacker have their feet more or less on the line. One is leaning forward, the other going back. Its a matter of an inch or two. Unless you have overwhelming evidence that he AR is wrong, you stay with his decision. What I see in that image is not overwhelming evidence one way or other.

There was another FA cap game last year with a similar margin where the tip of the attacker's knee was possibly an inch offside. That was given offside.
It might be a matter of an inch, but if they have the confidence that the technology is accurate then that's fine.

'Clear and obvious' doesn't mean it has to be a major difference. Like the ball in/out of play -
 
#27
Yup, 99 . something % accurate according to FIFA, but 99.9% more pain than gain for the rest of us...
I always wondered how the federations were reporting their accuracy figures - because I know in the first season of the HAL especially, most of the VAR decisions were definitely wrong - and that's not even counting all the times when it should have been involved but inexplicably wasn't (the sort of problems that perpetuates the argument of 'big club favouritism')
 

QuaverRef

I used to be indecisive but now i'm not so sure
#28
What's the margin of error? Significantly more when they are using the 2D line.

Need to introduce the clear and obvious element to offside decisions with VAR, as the faux 3D image (most accurate) can give a result
that's several inches different to the 2D line.
You can’t use the ‘clear and obvious error’ criteria for offside because it’s either onside or offside. Clear and obvious is used because with some challenges, there’s room for debate
 

one

RefChat Addict
#30
You can’t use the ‘clear and obvious error’ criteria for offside because it’s either onside or offside. Clear and obvious is used because with some challenges, there’s room for debate
And that is the issue. While offside is black and white, the decision that VAR makes on offside is not for something like the OP, it's an educated guess. They are obliged to make a determination even if they are not certain. They have to look at an image like that and say what it is. There is no way you can be 100% certain on a case like that. Factucal means 100% percent certain.

GLT however is a computer made decision. It uses some algorithms and makes a black and white decision (taking error of margin into account). The only time you can argue about it is if there is a malfunction. But with offside there will always be argument like this on super close calls unless technology makes the decision for VAR.

3D ( with vertical) offside line comes close but I doubt FA cup uses that technology.
 
Likes: JH
#31
And that is the issue. While offside is black and white, the decision that VAR makes on offside is not for something like the OP, it's an educated guess. They are obliged to make a determination even if they are not certain. They have to look at an image like that and say what it is. There is no way you can be 100% certain on a case like that. Factucal means 100% percent certain.

GLT however is a computer made decision. It uses some algorithms and makes a black and white decision (taking error of margin into account). The only time you can argue about it is if there is a malfunction. But with offside there will always be argument like this on super close calls unless technology makes the decision for VAR.

3D ( with vertical) offside line comes close but I doubt FA cup uses that technology.
When sky were using the Chelsea footage (some guy drawing a line with MS Paint on their laptop), there should have been someone from the fa or whoever defending - how it was used.
 

AlexF

RefChat Addict
#32
I was implying SPA, could've been reckless. I don't think it was DOGSO, from memory the ball was pretty much going out?
If SPA in the penalty area and there's an attempt at the ball (which this is based on IFAB and FIFA instruction, albeit late), then no caution, unless the offence is deemed reckless (obviously).

The ball is flicked past the GK, and then the question really becomes, what is the likelihood that the attacking player, without the offence, gets control of that ball. In this case, take the offence out (ie, remove the GK from the situation), and I'd say that the likelihood of control is pretty high.
 

JH

RefChat Addict
#33
If SPA in the penalty area and there's an attempt at the ball (which this is based on IFAB and FIFA instruction, albeit late), then no caution, unless the offence is deemed reckless (obviously).

The ball is flicked past the GK, and then the question really becomes, what is the likelihood that the attacking player, without the offence, gets control of that ball. In this case, take the offence out (ie, remove the GK from the situation), and I'd say that the likelihood of control is pretty high.
I'd have to see it again, my impression was that Kane took a big touch because he knew he would be fouled.
 
#38
I actually think the two pics are exactly the same moment. Have a look at everyone else. They are on exactly the same pose. I think the reason one shows offside and the other level is the camera angle. One show the body over the line because it is a behind angle.

We had this discussion a few times before the world cup. There isn't too much problem with the protocol. The biggest problem for me is that the technology is not good enough to support it (resolution, frame rate, angles...). You have to spend a lot more money to rectify those tech shortcomings. The world cup game did (32+ cameras with many ultra HD and super slow mo - some dedicated to offside) but I doubt FA cup games have even half as much budget for technology.
The second problem is while the protocol is to remove human error, it introduces new ones, like the OP when AR signalled too early, or VAR intervening for non clear errors.
Strongly disagree. The protocol is mess. Clear and obvious? Refs watching screens? It’s s mess.
 

Mintyref

RefChat Addict
#40
Clear and obvious doesn't apply to offsides as that is a black and white decision. You are either on or off, there is no in the opinion of the assistant referee.
Well sort of.......if the assistant's opinion is that the player was offside, the player was offside.....
 
Top