I know this was a point of concern with VAR. VAR added a goal tonight in COL-NY. Goal scored was initially called offside, overturned by VAR into a NY goal (the winning one). Not sure they got the call right personally.
Close call. VAR has more/better view than we do—this play seems a good candidate to show up in PRO’s weekly review with the four simultaneous cameras that lets them be very precise about the exact moment of the touch.
I'm sorry. If you are having to break down HD or 4K video at the point of a single frame with multiple cameras synced together and drawing lines to gauge on or offside that's not exactly a "clear and obvious" error. It's not a "clear" error. It's not even what I would call an error. It is what it is.
As I understand it, for objective issues, such as offside position , “clear” means that it can clearly be determined, not that it should have been determined in live action. And the technology can often give a clear answer on things that are beyond human ability to determine consistently in live action.
That I agree with. However, if a difference of one frame makes a difference in your decision you are within the margin of error of the technology.
A little behind, but from what I've read about the A-League final it seems like the Hawkeye software failed and didn't capture any vision to judge the offside. It would be interesting to know how often the software has crashed during use but we've never heard about it as it has never impacted a decision. Here's hoping Hawkeye is running the software in Russia, and if they are, they have multiple feeds being recorded as a backup in case something like this happens again.
Hawkeye made their name initially in tennis. I can tell you of many times it failed at the U.S. Open tennis. It's wasn't even that accurate. Precise, but not accurate.
So, I'm not sure what in hell happened here... but this (to me) appears like a complete VAR failure in Poland. https://streamable.com/sl6yt In this case, Red/Yellow needed to win to have a chance at the title, the other team needed to win to clinch a Europa League spot.
It appears blue stepped on the toe of the yellow/red player who slid in. It took me about eight replays to spot this. Not to sound like a broken record, but if...or when a goal like this is ruled out in the World Cup, it will be the only big story for days.
When I watched the full speed clip I thought the CR played a small advantage off a foul by yellow coming in and tagging the Blue player.
Serie A just published their statistics for VAR use. Couldn’t figure out how to translate the page on mobile. http://sport.repubblica.it/news/spo...ri-arbitri-ridotti-del-5/4742351?refresh_cens
Glowing review from those that are heavily vested in it and will benefit greatly from a great review...even if it is their own.
With a little help from the Google Translate app on my tablet, I got the following: "A result beyond expectations. VAR passed with flying colors, according to the report released by Serie A and FIGC on the first season of use of the new technology. In the course of 397 games, 2023 checks were carried out, which resulted in 117 refereeing corrections, representing an intervention every 3.39 games. "Minimal interference for maximum benefit as desired at the beginning of the project", underlines the report. The percentage of referee errors would have been 5.78% without VAR while with its use the percentage drops to 0.89%. "Considering that the strategic plan initially envisaged the introduction of the VAR for the Serie A 2018/19 championship and that for 2017/18 it was only used for the TIM Cup knockout stages, the anticipation of a start up year made the result even more significant. "The 117 refereeing corrections involved 59 penalties, 16 red cards and 42 goals and if the average time of a decision with the VAR in the first three days was 1'22", it has since dropped to 31.5". Compared to the previous season, where there was no VAR, the recovery has increased by 13" but the actual elapsed time has also increased (+43", from 50'30" to 51'13"), with cautions down (-12.3%), dismissals (-7.1%), protests (-17.5%) but above all simulation down (-35.3%), with the VAR shown to have a deterrent effect, and if in the last season there were 11 reds for protests, in the first year of VAR there was only one. Extraordinary commissioner Roberto Fabbricini underlined that the FIGC was among the first federations to promote the use of the VAR, introducing this technological tool in the Serie A championship and creating a permanent center in Coverciano for the training of referees from all over the world. "The teamwork carried out with Serie A and the Hague has allowed us to achieve very positive results in this first season, which confirmed the value of our refereeing classes and allowed Italy to play an increasingly important role at the heart of the international football system." "The results are extraordinary" - said Roberto Rosetti, project manager for Serie A and FIFA Refereeing Project Leader - "above all in reference to the refereeing statistics and the perceptions of stakeholders of the football system. We can still improve what has been achieved from the next season in terms of technology, and communication to fans. Implementations that will make the VAR project even more reliable." Designer Nicola Rizzoli was also pleased:" Italian referees have demonstrated a high level of application and interpretation, integrating with a complex technological system that physiologically required time and experience in its development. The results obtained are very good and go beyond expectations. The margins for improvement of the areas of intervention and consistency leave room for much optimism for the near future."
That first section has to have been written by the same PR firm that did the statement when FIFA came out with their evaluation some time back.
https://www.irishexaminer.com/sport...een-saver-or-blurring-the-picture-471818.html The World Cup setup.
Guys, WC VAR stuff should go in the WC forum. This thread would be perfect for these posts, otherwise we're going to end up with two conversations about the same stuff: https://www.bigsoccer.com/threads/how-is-video-review-supposed-to-work.2083738/ Thank you!
Not VAR exactly, but I was officiating long jump and triple jump last week at the NCAA National Track & Field Championships. We had a camera right in front of the board judge (who determines if the jumper's foot extended over the foul line), trained on the board. A guy next to the board judge with a laptop could then replay the moment the foot hit the board if the board judge wanted to see it again, before ruling fair or foul. I have used this system at the National Championships for the last two years as well as at the West Regional meet this year. Out of typically three dozen jumps in an event, I will check the video two or three times. Perhaps because of my soccer referee experience, I have found that my initial judgment is always correct upon review, although very occasionally there is one that I really don't know until I see the review. I had one such jump this year on men's triple jump. One athlete popped a long one but I wasn't sure about the board. I checked the monitor and saw that his foot was about a quarter centimeter over the line. When I reached for the red flag next to my chair, about 3,000 spectators moaned. I hadn't even touched the handle yet and they knew what was coming. Now that's a knowledgeable crowd! Interestingly, there were two protests filed by coaches, both for jumpers that were, on review, clearly more than an inch and a half over the line. Applying my experience to soccer, I would say that 1. it felt good to know that I was right, rather than just think forever that I was probably right 2. going to review helps sell the decision to the coaches, athletes and spectators, even though it didn't change my initial (silent, unannounced) decision. The first time we used the system, on the first event, there were two protests, both unsuccessful, after I had looked at the screen. I think that, once coaches understood that the evidence was right there, they decided that it wasn't worth certainly losing the $100 protest fee. 3. the advantage for track & field over soccer is that the review is fast, less than 10 seconds, because it's so focused on a fixed physical area, and it does not require stopping live action to do the review. Oh, and also that I can do the review myself, rather than have someone in a booth, in the case of the World Cup, thousands of miles away, in effect doing the review.
The Economist did an analysis on the frequency of PKs in the various leagues with VAR after the number of PKs awarded in the World Cup. The article is behind a paywall (but you can get 3 free articles per week by creating an account). The Economist twitter account included the important graph so that's why I'm including the image here. The conclusion is that PKs have not increased with the introduction of VAR and that the World Cup is the outlier.
That’s really interesting—especially since, in general, the WC has seemed less likely to recommend calls be changed than at least manny domestic leagues.
But not on penalties. Penalties are the huge outlier here. There have been no SFP on-field-reviews and only two such VC reviews in the WC. It's hard to say with such limited examples if there is a big discrepancy in SFP, but it's obvious the bar for VC intervention at the WC is much higher. It is much lower for penalties and the World Cup is the outlier for that, as stated above. The big question is whether or not the World Cup sets the tone for world football going forward or if MLS, Serie A and the Bundesliga do. Posters here have become so accustomed to MLS and the scrutiny we've had of other leagues that we forget the vast majority of fans worldwide have no experience with VARs. If and when England, Spain and UEFA go the VR route, the approach they take will really matter. And if instruction is going to flow down from the IFAB and FIFA, I think you're more likely to see what has happened at this World Cup--unless, of course, FIFA can admit its not happy with the implementation.