Don't tell me that the VAR Thread is still going?

At the end of the day its not a VAR issue. Its simply a rule change which everyone is free to like or dislike.

 

No, don’t get me wrong. I’ve no problem using VAR for those handballs (Maradona, Henry et al.). Maradona’s handball was deliberate and had the ref caught it, it would have been disallowed then, as it would be now with VAR.

I don’t understand why if there’s the old fashioned accidental handball and it leads to a goal, it’s a foul and no goal. Whereas if there’s accidental handball that doesn’t lead to a goal, there’s nothing.

And then there’re defenders being held to a different standard. All of this is a material change in the rules. But, as I say, their ball, their games, their rules.

 

Handball in the box is now more complicated than quantum physics, a mish-mash Schrödinger’s Cat, the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle and the Double Slit experiment.

 

there have been too many significant rule change introduced simultaneously (or too close together). it's impossible to keep up.

then add the VAR mismash, which is being adopted in different way in different leagues/competitions, which magnifies the mass confusion many times over.

end result = there's never been a time like this in the game - probably in any sport anywhere - with so many long-term fans at a loss to understand or explain WTF is going on, or why.

if this continues a lot of marginal fans will simply walk away shaking their heads in frustration, and the chances of attracting new fans to the game will wither.

 

Var doing great, according to this idiot .... gives it 7 out of 10.

now let's see. if a new game process was working at that rate of effectiveness, you'd kinda expect - roughly speaking - that 7 out of 10 fans, players, managers and pundits would be happy with it. which is absolutely not the case.

https://www.bbc.com/sport/football/50380641

 

if it was effective, a majority of the ppl affected / viewing/ commenting on it would be positive about it. they're not. ergo it is not effective.

while we're at it.... "It is understood the accuracy of decision making around key incidents, such as goals, red cards and penalties, has increased from 82% last season to above 90% this term."

this reads like a classic self-reinforcing stat invented by the ppl in charge of VAR. how is this established? based on what? how did they establish the 82% number ffs? if those decisions were known to be wrong last season, why did those decisions stand? and who says 90% of this year's VAR decisions are correct apart from the ppl making those decisions?

 

I didn't say you called it effective. HE is saying (essentially) that it's been effective by giving it 7/10.

you're missing the point. not surprisingly. many of the calls VAR interferes on are subjective - god knows THAT is a fact - so here we have ppl who are making subjective calls saying "we've analyzed our work and we did them correctly. well done to us!". how self-serving can you get.

 

Is that the case? Not sure we know.

What would be easy to do is see how many non-subjective calls were correctly called as opposed to missed last year.

(eg offside)

And, yes there are some offsides "too close to call" (with or without VAR) so just eliminate those from the analysis.

 

is there any chance you can stop using the word "fact" in relation to subjective decisions. makes zero sense.

 

https://www.theguardian.com/footbal...-technology-damage-sheffield-united-tottenham

recommended reading.
Straightforward in/out decisions – adjudicated by HawkEye in tennis or football’s goal-line technology – are one thing. Any decision involving a judgment call is another matter altogether. And, as we are now painfully aware, some decisions in football will always be a matter of judgment rather than fact.

 

random VAR thoughts ....

offside is called when a player is offside when the ball is played. OK we all grew up with that, but now with VAR ...

how is VAR measuring this? at the time the passer makes contact with the ball, or when the ball leaves his foot/head? if it's the latter - how much space is measured between the ball and the foot/head?? because we are now getting close to seeing electron microscopes being applied, this matters!!!


I'm waiting for a player to be called offside because his nose was closer to the goal than the defender. god help us if that player is, say, Middle Eastern. VAR offside calls obviously give an advantage to some ethnic groups. recruiting in Asia would skyrocket. someone give the human-rights lawyers a heads up on this, OK?

 

I expect the person doing the VAR makes his best estimate based on what the frame by frame allows him to see. Which will be a lot more accurate than a linesmans best guess in real time.

Will there will be some offsides that are too close to call with VAR? Yes. In those cases, someone has to make a subjective decision and the game goes on. The next day, the aggrieved supporters will agonise over the unfairness of the call. So basically exactly the same situation as pre-VAR.

What VAR does do, is eliminate subjectivity down to a certain degree of accuracy. Whether this is an inch, several inches or a foot, there is a point where a VAR offside review is indisputable. Therefore, all offside calls which are based on distances greater than this limit will always be correctly called. Which is a substantial improvement over pre-VAR.

That is where VAR is good. For the indisputable, factual decisions. Anything that is still subjective after a VAR review always has been subjective. So nothing has changed.

 

so your view is that a player has an advantage if (eg) his arse is a fraction of an inch ahead of the defender.

 

This really shouldn't be at the core of the argument. Wherever you want to draw the offside line, there has to be a rule.

I have no objection to the offside rule being changed with respect to what makes someone offside. Whatever it is will be the same for both teams. Would you be OK if there had to be clear daylight between attacker and defender?

However, whatever new rule were to be introduced, I am 100% OK with VAR being used to determine if the rule has been infringed down to whatever degree of accuracy is possible to produce an objective decision.

 

you and Hobo have planted your flags square in the "a rule is a rule, all VAR does is enforce the rule", regardless of the absurdity of the outcome.

my question is trying to find out how far you take that: Do you think a player has an advantage if (eg) his arse is a fraction of an inch ahead of the defender?

your answer is ..... ?

 

In practice, whether or not there is an actual advantage will also depend on other factors such as who is moving in which direction at what speed. For example an attacker could be three feet offside and not getting any practical advantage? Eg if the attacker is standing flat footed outside the attacking third but three feet offside whereas two defenders are retreating at full speed. The attacker still has two defenders and the GK to beat before scoring. Being offside by three feet really gave him no more chance of scoring than if he had been just onside?

So, depending on the circumstance, a player could get more of a practical advantage being one foot offside in one scenario than being three feet offside in another.

Does an attacker get an advantage being a fraction of an inch offside? Again it depends. If the attacker is running toward goal but the defenders are running away from goal (to play an offside trap), then the attacker has gained an advantage.

Question: Let's assume a case where there was no practical "advantage", but the goal scoring player was technically a foot offside (under whatever the rules are at that time). Should the goal stand?

 

As previously stated, in principle I have no objection if the offside rule gets changed to something better.

This isn't a VAR problem.

Pre VAR: Bigger grey area where they are "too close to call" but the ref/linesman has to make a decision.

With VAR: Smaller grey area where they are "too close to call" but the VAR ref has to make a decision.

It seems you prefer the bigger grey area?