To hate VAR or to hate the LOTG? That is the question [R]

Discussion in 'Liverpool' started by el-capitano, Dec 3, 2019.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. EruditeHobo

    EruditeHobo Member+

    Mar 29, 2007
    San Francisco, CA
    Club:
    Liverpool FC
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    It does exactly what it's set out to do... eliminate obvious errors. I don't know why you keep insisting that it's doing such a shitty job... the point is the shitty job is built into the ruleset, for the most part. Some of that can be tweaked, some can't. But it's doing exactly the job it set out to do.

    What you're mostly talking about is the fact that YOU (among many, many others, obviously) do not like the feel of what happens when VAR does it's job as clearly outlined. So you should say that, or something like it.

    So you aren't even engaging with the full context of things you yourself are posting in order to make a point?

    Which camera angle are you talking about, there are more than one shown in that link you posted. But yes they should get more camera angles. I agree.

    I'm sure they will come.

    Until then, if we could collectively decide if we want to bitch about close offside calls which result in VAR taking away goals or close offside calls in which VAR allows goals, I'd personally really appreciate it! Because when you bitch about both depending on which version of the call happened that day, you are self-sabotaging your own credibility in this "discussion".

    But yeah. I hope VAR gets better at communicating, gets faster, and is more effectively integrated with the rules.
    When all that is part of the package of what VAR actually is, and then it doesn't do it, then it will start to be a failure.
    But not until then. It only is what it is until that point.
     
    Serengeti_Boy repped this.
  2. EruditeHobo

    EruditeHobo Member+

    Mar 29, 2007
    San Francisco, CA
    Club:
    Liverpool FC
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    Naby looked good the other day.
     
  3. delaynomo

    delaynomo Member+

    Jun 1, 2015
    Club:
    Liverpool FC
    Off topic!!! :mad:
     
    EruditeHobo repped this.
  4. EruditeHobo

    EruditeHobo Member+

    Mar 29, 2007
    San Francisco, CA
    Club:
    Liverpool FC
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    For me, Naby is never off topic.
     
  5. burning247

    burning247 Member+

    Liverpool FC
    England
    Sep 16, 2000
    Dallas
    Club:
    Liverpool FC
    Nat'l Team:
    England
    Naby it is, Naby it isn't.
     
    Wingtips1, el-capitano and EruditeHobo repped this.
  6. usscouse

    usscouse BigSoccer Supporter

    May 3, 2002
    Orygun coast
    Of course I’m posting to make a point. Jesus this thread is getting more and more cult like. You thinking somehow you’re the pontiff.

    Today in the Norwich Lester game. A goal of Leicester’s disallowed for handball. Var nixed it, fine play on.
    Then 10 minutes later they show another view and the ball looks like comes off a Norwich players elbow onto the Leicester players hand.
    Didn’t make Brendan happy but hey, too bad so sad. It’s only 3 premier division points.

    it’s only what it is. !!!!

    Offside. Var isn’t the real problem var has just exposed how ambiguous the law is. Especially with the limited technology of var cameras.

    I’ll leave you in your little world of var.
     
  7. EruditeHobo

    EruditeHobo Member+

    Mar 29, 2007
    San Francisco, CA
    Club:
    Liverpool FC
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    I'm really asking here, what are you even upset about in this case? I mean I haven't seen it, maybe it looks bad... but this is literally in the rules as something which must be disallowed.

    1. The ball cannot in any circumstance touch an attackers hand/arm and end up in the net as a valid goal
    2. The ball CAN accidentally touch a defender's hand/arm and not result in a penalty

    So what's the issue? This example is pretty much not about VAR at all. It's only "about VAR" because the system sees things which are clearly outlined as illegal that refs won't/dont' see. Did this take a long time to spot?

    Yeah, generally I get this sentiment, but unfortunately this still isn't quite 100% right... the law isn't "ambiguous", it's very clear. And the offside law would -- and DID -- have these same sorts of decisions without VAR. The only difference is without VAR they take much less time to sort out because it's just a spot decision, and more importantly there were many more incorrect decisions because human refs obviously cannot get things as correct on the first glance. And whatever they change the VAR law to re: offside decisions, there will always very, very, very close offside calls.

    After thinking about it a lot, I'd say if they implemented a rule that the VAR booth has something like 60 seconds, and if in that time they cannot clearly see an obvious error in the on field decision then that decision stands, I'd be for it. It probably would allow a few more "wrong" decisions overall, but the optics of it would probably be okay. It would probably only miss on the really, super close calls. And that would still do a much better job than having no VAR. So that would be my proposed change, something like that.

    Also refs use pitch-side monitors immediately for things like penalties and red card incidents if VAR buzzes them, and 60 seconds maximum there, too.

    I think that would solve most of the problems people have with it.
     
  8. usscouse

    usscouse BigSoccer Supporter

    May 3, 2002
    Orygun coast
    You haven’t seen it so obviously it’s difficult. The goal was disallowed because it seemed to hit the attackers arm. Yes of course the resulting goal was disallowed.

    But the second view 10-15 minutes later shows the ball hitting the defenders elbow first then going on to hit the attackers hand/arm.
    But according to you that doesn’t count. Oh well. You have spoken.

    oh I used the word ambiguous instead of f*cked. Just trying to be polite. (For a change)
     
  9. delaynomo

    delaynomo Member+

    Jun 1, 2015
    Club:
    Liverpool FC
    According to the rules that is no goal (assuming defenders elbow was accidental).

    Only possible outcomes are:

    1. Penalty (if defenders elbow not accidental)

    2. No goal (if defenders elbow is accidental)

    The "goal" cannot stand in any outcome as it hit the attackers hand/arm.
     
    EruditeHobo repped this.
  10. EruditeHobo

    EruditeHobo Member+

    Mar 29, 2007
    San Francisco, CA
    Club:
    Liverpool FC
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    #335 EruditeHobo, Mar 2, 2020
    Last edited: Mar 2, 2020
    But it doesn't count. This isn't me saying this, the rules say this as delay points out above.

    I'm not sure what we're talking about anymore. And this is why when we're talking about a single example, we should probably stick with it. -- the KDB example in particular, which is where we started, I admit it's a totally tough call! But VAR being involved doesn't somehow make it easier... how could it? If anything, more than ever it means the refs original decision is just going to stand, because as a tough call that's been called either way, that sort of suggests that there's very little that's clear and obvious about the incident. Because while the ball clearly hits KDB's hands, there are a bunch of rules that allow that to happen and not have a handball be called. Right?

    So I don't know why we're upset about this particular call. Yes, it could be a pen, but it's gone the other way so, so many times -- with and without VAR, frankly -- it just speaks to the fact that these things aren't crystal clear one way or the other.

    A ball that brushes an attacker's hand, then gets scored as a goal... that however IS crystal clear.
    This is the difference in a rule that is subjective in language, and a rule that is binary in language.
     
  11. usscouse

    usscouse BigSoccer Supporter

    May 3, 2002
    Orygun coast
    That’s a lot of words that just don’t make any sense. You’ve just convoluted the whole incident. Or in this case 2 overlapping incidents.
    Never mind I have it from someone who understands.
     
  12. burning247

    burning247 Member+

    Liverpool FC
    England
    Sep 16, 2000
    Dallas
    Club:
    Liverpool FC
    Nat'l Team:
    England
    We should rename the thread to 1 of these 2 choices...
     
    Wingtips1, usscouse and delaynomo repped this.
  13. EruditeHobo

    EruditeHobo Member+

    Mar 29, 2007
    San Francisco, CA
    Club:
    Liverpool FC
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    As long as you get it, I don't care who explains what.
     
  14. EruditeHobo

    EruditeHobo Member+

    Mar 29, 2007
    San Francisco, CA
    Club:
    Liverpool FC
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    #339 EruditeHobo, Mar 2, 2020
    Last edited: Mar 2, 2020
    United / Everton match, crazy sequence in stoppage time to help United secure the draw.

    -----
    1. Sigi runs into space in the box onto knocked down ball. He gets quick shot away, just as W-B comes in along the ground in sliding tackle.

    2. Sigi makes some kind of contact with W-B, and he was going with speed and sort of falling over already. DDG makes a good save, ball ricochets up and away but stays inside the box.

    3. Sig was coming in at full throttle, so he goes over in a heap, and stays laying there on the ground right near 6-yd box, obviously in offside position as United backline pushes up.

    4. The ball is quickly gathered by Evertonian and struck! It rebounds off Maguire's ankle, changing trajectory... and it skates right past Sigi's cleats as he moves his feet out of the new path of the ball.

    5. DDG is wrong-footed, but Sigi clearly in his eyeline. Ball goes in, just inside the near post.
    -----

    VAR didn't give the pen.
    VAR did rule out the goal.

    Both looked correct to me, but Everton will feel hard done by. The rules are difficult to interpret when it comes to becoming active in play from offside position. It's a very weird play but I think it's hard to argue Sigi isn't influencing play by remaining on the ground where he is, and having the ball not hit him. If you're that close to the ball and obviously within the keeper's eyeline, since that's what this part of the rule is so focused on, it's going to get called a lot IMO.

    An Everton fan might argue even if he didn't move and the ball hit him, that would be ruled as him influencing play as well. And it definitely would. I guess the solution is not to remain seated in an offside position, because literally if he had gotten up and not been in offside position, even if he'd scrambled out of the way to the left of the goal on all fours, Everton would have won the match.

    Another element to this is "playing the ball", which should reset offsides... think of Lovren swinging and screwing up against Spurs, which reset offsides for Kane, who was off, and then allowed him to run in and draw a penalty.

    The difference according to a lot of people I read, and by people I mean refs and analysts, was that a BLOCK is not considered "playing the ball", and a CLEARANCE is considered "playing the ball". Maguire's ruled a block, Lovren's ruled an attempted clearance.
     
  15. newterp

    newterp Moderator
    Staff Member

    Jun 6, 2007
    North Potomac, MD
    Club:
    Liverpool FC
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    It was a good call from perspective. Crazy sequence through!
     
    EruditeHobo repped this.
  16. zaqualung

    zaqualung Member+

    Jun 17, 2015
    San Francisco
    Club:
    Liverpool FC
    Having little time recently to look into this interminable thread where the opposite of one thing the next day transmutes into the same thing.....

    now that I've been having a quick browse, (apologies for dropping back in time here) but I feel the need to point out about this post that the people getting high from dispensaries (pot) in SF are not the people shitting all over the streets.
    Completely separate issues. Absolutely nothing to do with each other.
     
  17. zaqualung

    zaqualung Member+

    Jun 17, 2015
    San Francisco
    Club:
    Liverpool FC
    This post certainly encapsulates a lot of the past few months.....
     
  18. EruditeHobo

    EruditeHobo Member+

    Mar 29, 2007
    San Francisco, CA
    Club:
    Liverpool FC
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    I'd love to know where people are going where there's... shit all over the street? Which specific alleys in specific neighborhoods are you guys spending all of your time? May I suggest leaving and not going back to those places, if possible?

    I've lived here 12 years, and literally never seen human shit in public. It's pretty easy to do, actually.
     
  19. EruditeHobo

    EruditeHobo Member+

    Mar 29, 2007
    San Francisco, CA
    Club:
    Liverpool FC
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    Tremendous breakdown of VAR done by this ESPN guy every week. Very informative.

    Here's one from February, which gives a lot of insight into how a VAR booth is actually run and why some checks can take a long time.

     
  20. zaqualung

    zaqualung Member+

    Jun 17, 2015
    San Francisco
    Club:
    Liverpool FC

    Two things about this - From your posts about games and always being at the Kezar on Stanyan, I'd guess you live in the area around there or likely West of there, which wouldn't tend to have anywhere near as many transients as the Eastern half of SF. So you wouldn't be seeing it as much. Although I've seen it down around the end of Haight there. Quite often. (It's gets walked away pretty fast down there I suppose .. .ick ....

    Whether that's true of not though, I would defy you to take a walk along Van Ness any day for any 8 or ten blocks and not see either sh!t or traces of where it has been stepped into the pavement and dragged around. Go a block east and try Polk - same deal .... Trying this in the south of market streets between 5th and 12th and Mission and Brannan would be a foolish waste of time. God forbid you don;t look at th eground around Division and the 12th st to 15thg street area ... The traces of it are all over the place.down there...

    I'd suggest you look down a bit more when ambling about, and leave your shoes outside your door when you arrive home. Until about 7 or 8 yerars back I never had any issues with it, but its gotten unbelievable.....

    btw, I've had to step around shit or shit remains (or what seems to close to shit remains to be worth a guyess) on the floor platform of Civic Center on numerous occasions...
     
  21. zaqualung

    zaqualung Member+

    Jun 17, 2015
    San Francisco
    Club:
    Liverpool FC
    For that underlined bit, I find your definition weird, always have.
    Its too easy of a definition to say only then interfering with play The problem with this being that Being Anywhere near the goalkeeper in a meaningful radius of his 45 degree outward angles of sight cannot but influence the keeper when he is trying to anticipate where to move, as he doesn't know where an attacker is going to move or which of the possible offside positions will be a problem and he is basically already reacting to this ...

    They really need to change that rule. Trouble is that it would need to be changed to something like an official's subjective idea of interference ... fine with me - as I',m okay with a game ruled by human error. But for the VAR type-addicts this would not work at all....

    Funny how all my remedies seem to state:
    leave it to the referee's judgement in the moment and get on with the excitement of it ----
    as opposed to
    leave it to the added VAR and the general death of excitement and fun and get your kicks out of drooling over getting it right .....

    At this rate - pretty soon, I wont be watching anymore .... I already hardly watch any football other than Liverpool games, mostly for this corona-virus like reason. You'd need an anti-anti-fun mask on your forehead to keep looking.
    Bayern v Chelsea was the first 90 mins I've watched of two other teams in a long while.... before this VAR cr@p took over that was wayy different for me.....
     
  22. burning247

    burning247 Member+

    Liverpool FC
    England
    Sep 16, 2000
    Dallas
    Club:
    Liverpool FC
    Nat'l Team:
    England
    Another thread title suggestion: "The VAR Thread: We're Now Literally Talking About Shit"
     
  23. usscouse

    usscouse BigSoccer Supporter

    May 3, 2002
    Orygun coast
    The Human Excrement Thread!

    Or is that Offside?

    Best check VAR :rolleyes:
     
  24. EruditeHobo

    EruditeHobo Member+

    Mar 29, 2007
    San Francisco, CA
    Club:
    Liverpool FC
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    #349 EruditeHobo, Mar 3, 2020
    Last edited: Mar 3, 2020
    That's why they outline what things like "influence play" mean, with multiple scenarios addressed within the rules. Because it's a complex game and these things need definitions. That's what rules do.

    If you haven't read the rules, I'm not sure how credible your opinion on them can be, in general. I'm not saying that to be a dick, but at this point I feel like it's fair to assume you just haven't read the rules for much of anything. You've seemed almost proud of that fact in the past. If I'm wrong let me know.

    But here's no way to write a good law using the word "interference", which as you suggest could mean just about anything, without an attempt to clearly define interference. Which is actually what the current rules do. If you like ambiguity and interpretation, I do not understand you saying you want more interpretation by refs yet also don't like the way some refs interpret the current rule? That really makes no sense to me, seems very contradictory and very selective.

    That said VAR certainly puts a microscope on the the VAR-relevant rules, I agree with you about that. I don't think it's a good thing because I'm a "VAR-addict", I think it's good because it's good at pointing out clearly where improvements can happen in the game... and on the cutting edge of the rulebook, since VAR is only dealing with potentially game/score-altering incidents.

    Happy trails, Hans.
     
  25. zaqualung

    zaqualung Member+

    Jun 17, 2015
    San Francisco
    Club:
    Liverpool FC
    Whatever did happen to Hans? I know that Zed got Dead, but that was Bruce ina more memorable movie……

    Anyway, first of all, I have no problem with reading the off-side rules. They are of some interest (not an overweening sort, but some).....
    However, reading about the mechanics of the rules and thought behind such a waste of time as VAR .... well, simply put, I'm not going to add more to the waste of my time there....
    ;)

    As for the rest of your posts points... more detail later....
     

Share This Page