VAR in Russia with Love
- Thread starter Sheffields Finest
- Start date
Ciley Myrus
RefChat Addict
As per Spurs game the other night, the WC will be great entertainment, if not a great sporting contest
You could actually freeze incidents with some pals in the house after a few beers and have endless fun playing, what happens next....
You could actually freeze incidents with some pals in the house after a few beers and have endless fun playing, what happens next....
PinnerPaul
RefChat Addict
You've got to love some of the comments on there. Basically blaming UK refs (already!) for the negative aspects, claiming that it works perfectly well in other countries.
The quote from FIFA - 'Its almost perfect' is just embarrassing.
The quote from FIFA - 'Its almost perfect' is just embarrassing.
Apparently, VAR accuracy is 98.8% with average time loss being 55 seconds. That's over 972 competitive matches. If FIFA are using those numbers, I guess I can understand why they've said it is 'almost perfect'.
(SkySports are the source though, don't know how reliable those numbers are.)
Edit: As I say that, IFAB approves it: http://theifab.com/news/historic-step-for-greater-fairness-in-football
The numbers are FIFA's numbers. They're a little propaganda-ish IMO, and ever since they released them in January, you knew IFAB was going to approve VAR.
I know at least 3 ardent Man Utd fans who now don’t go to any of the matches, 2 go and watch local football including Salford City. They blame the cost of football, the wages paid having no reflection on the fans that watch and one mentioned the incoming VAR. Even big clubs fans are worried that they won’t get home decisions. WOW
CapnBloodbeard
RefChat Addict
How is this going to work with countries and refs going to the WC that arent' currently using VAR?
I know That in the early days of VAR our Australian FFA came out with some accuracy stats....they were completely and utterly fudged and every fan knew it.
How many other association are reporting false statistics back to IFAB leading them to make the decision to approve VAR?
I know That in the early days of VAR our Australian FFA came out with some accuracy stats....they were completely and utterly fudged and every fan knew it.
How many other association are reporting false statistics back to IFAB leading them to make the decision to approve VAR?
With the power and wealth of the clubs I wonder how long it would be before a team goes legal to right a wrong on a football pitch? Maybe VAR is the as4e covering solution that absconded the associations of blame even though it ruins football as a spectacle! No one doubts certain things are seen by VAR That are missed at match speed, it’s the long winded process and visual application of that system that is fundamentally wrong so far.
one
RefChat Addict
98.8% accuracy ???? That means only 1 out of 100 VAR decisions are 'inaccurate'. Either these guys are living under a rock or think every ones else is. There are only a handful of countries and leagues who use VAR. Its not too hard to check the media and see the number of stuff-ups by the VAR system.
No doubt every time a VAR changes a 50-50 decision is counted as a success. I wonder how they count the ones that VAR takes 2 or more minutes to confirm that the referee was right in the first place. Or do they count a review of a good decision to change it to a bad decision as two errors? We have had plenty of those in Australia.
VAR system is not necessarily a bad thing but we are not ready for it yet. And sugar coating it with manipulated stats doesn't make it any more ready to use.
No doubt every time a VAR changes a 50-50 decision is counted as a success. I wonder how they count the ones that VAR takes 2 or more minutes to confirm that the referee was right in the first place. Or do they count a review of a good decision to change it to a bad decision as two errors? We have had plenty of those in Australia.
VAR system is not necessarily a bad thing but we are not ready for it yet. And sugar coating it with manipulated stats doesn't make it any more ready to use.
I'm guessing here that everytime they do a VAR and the decision is unchanged, it counts as a 'accurate' decision for VAR?
Then add on top any error by the referee that VAR changes is an 'accurate' decision too. The only way to be inaccurate is if VAR makes a howler, in which case, I can see how the numbers would be that inflated.
one
RefChat Addict
The problem with that is they used a review for something that was not a 'clear error'. While it may have been accurate, it was a misuse of the system and waste of 2 minutes so an incorrect outcome as far as the image of the game goes.
As I said stats can be manipulated to favour what you want them to represent.
Remember that VAR is used to check all goals, YCs and RCs along the way for things like "was there an offside in the lead-up?" and "was the player who was cautioned/sent off the correct player?"
All of those are going to count as correct decisions in their stats. These are also going to be bringing the average/median times of VAR checks down, since most of them will take 5s or less.
The stats when the VAR is visible to the spectators/etc, I'd suspect, are much different.
All of those are going to count as correct decisions in their stats. These are also going to be bringing the average/median times of VAR checks down, since most of them will take 5s or less.
The stats when the VAR is visible to the spectators/etc, I'd suspect, are much different.
PinnerPaul
RefChat Addict
The point is if ref and VAR make the decision - like the Lamela disallowed goal - FIFA are going to call that a 'correct' decision - despite many disagreeing - hence the favourable numbers!
The official FIFA statistician!......
CapnBloodbeard
RefChat Addict
I don't think that's it. In the A-league they actually told us how many decisions the VAR has been used for. That's how we know how ridiculously off the figures were because there were clearly a lot of match-changing errors under the scope of VAR that weren't looked at (not to mention how often the VAR looks at one and changes a correct decision to a wrong one)
Whereas with MLS (US/Canada), Bundesliga (Germany), and Liga NOS (Portugal), they're proudly noting that VAR is checked constantly, and that full review is only happening X times per match.
The problem with the stats presented is that they don't make it clear if they're referring to all checks, just the full review checks, a mix, and when they're using which stats to make their argument better/stronger.
one
RefChat Addict
And with a number like 98.8% they would be wrong on each one of those cases
Last edited:
one
RefChat Addict
I just read the actual stats quote from FIFA (Gianni Infantino)
"The facts are that from almost 1,000 matches which were tested, the accuracy rate of the referees went up from 93 per cent to 99 per cent."
Sounds good right? So lets analyse this for a second. It says out of every 100 KMD reviews, 93 of them the referee was right (no need for a review to start with). Out of the other 7, VAR was wrong once (either changing a correct decision to incorrect or not detecting an incorrect decision). So here is my representation of the numbers.
For every 6 decisions VAR changes correctly, one decision they don't change correctly so it has an effective accuracy of 85%
Nowhere near as accurate as they make it out to be. In fact 85% accuracy is more in line with what we have been seeing.
Also that number will drop if the someone independent were to determine if a change was correct.
"The facts are that from almost 1,000 matches which were tested, the accuracy rate of the referees went up from 93 per cent to 99 per cent."
Sounds good right? So lets analyse this for a second. It says out of every 100 KMD reviews, 93 of them the referee was right (no need for a review to start with). Out of the other 7, VAR was wrong once (either changing a correct decision to incorrect or not detecting an incorrect decision). So here is my representation of the numbers.
For every 6 decisions VAR changes correctly, one decision they don't change correctly so it has an effective accuracy of 85%
Nowhere near as accurate as they make it out to be. In fact 85% accuracy is more in line with what we have been seeing.
Also that number will drop if the someone independent were to determine if a change was correct.
Last edited: