Kudos
UTC Legend
Not sure what point you're making here, just being sarcastic?
VAR
- Thread starter Forza Rossoneri!
- Start date
RobTrent
UTC Legend
You said humans make worse decisions. I replied that they still make the decisions. I don’t think the ‘improvement’ in correct decisions has been significant or proven to justify it as a technology.
Kudos
UTC Legend
No I said a physically tired human with a bad viewpoint and a split second to decide makes a worse decision than a small group of well rested humans with a freeze frame image with lines drawn. That shouldn't be contraversial.
Humans unaided perform worse than humans with tools that's why tools exist.
The decrease in errors is documented as quite high by independent studies the more subjective time taken and bias are still way off IMO but that's a culture problem not a technology one.
RobTrent
UTC Legend
I missed your extended explanation of the people involved in the decision making process apologies.
Kudos
UTC Legend
To be fair, I wasn't sure if you were being sarcastic with this post so thought I'd double check what I actually said and struggled to find the post where I originally said it.
DJ
Moderator
Decisions by committee are the reason why UEFA believe next seasons league stage is the best answer to a question that no fans asked.
We’ve now got a referee, two assistants, the fourth official, VAR, 3 Assistant VAR’s and 3 video operators all making a decision on when a ball is kicked and where someone’s armpit hair or ingrowing toenail start and end.
All using technology which is admitted has an inaccuracy on the exact thing that they’re trying to split the atom on.
Semi automated offsides is a better technology and can’t come soon enough to rid us of the current shambles.
Perhaps in time this and goal line technology is what we’ll settle on, with VAR only required for things the officials have physically missed like a Maradona hand ball, or someone knocking seven bells out of someone behind the referees back.
We’ve now got a referee, two assistants, the fourth official, VAR, 3 Assistant VAR’s and 3 video operators all making a decision on when a ball is kicked and where someone’s armpit hair or ingrowing toenail start and end.
All using technology which is admitted has an inaccuracy on the exact thing that they’re trying to split the atom on.
Semi automated offsides is a better technology and can’t come soon enough to rid us of the current shambles.
Perhaps in time this and goal line technology is what we’ll settle on, with VAR only required for things the officials have physically missed like a Maradona hand ball, or someone knocking seven bells out of someone behind the referees back.
SlowDownDerek
UTC Legend
If automated offside works and is near instant then great. It's the instant re-reffing of games that destroys the moment and is simply not worth it for a marginal increase in accuracy.
With that said I think people in general have got completely unrealistic expectations as to what is possible. You can't get ten people to agree on pretty much any decision so expecting universal 'fairness' is never going to happen. All you can do is expect impartiality.
Kudos
UTC Legend
What's the format of European football got to with VAR being a bad technology?
Ignoring the fact that by definition an ingrowing toenail doesn't expand a toe length this is only happening in your head. In fact the same process as always is applied just using better tooling.
Ah the old, it's not perfect so don't try to approve. I bet you were livid when they let linos wear baseball caps. What a corruption of our sport.
I don't understand the technology but it does sound like an improvement.
Definitely think there's room for improvement in application of VAR. It takes less than 5 seconds to replay something a couple of times and if after seeing something three times it's not conclusive enough then it's not worth following up on.
Toronto John
Fans' Favourite
We have similar issues over here with other sports, and it has by and large been pretty poor. My problem with this is that the stated objective is to "get it right", but so many other things are imprecise that it undermines said objective.
I saw a game the other day (think it was Champions League) where a player was clearly offside but was not reviewed as there was no scoring chance. Ball goes out of play for a corner. Goal scored on ensuing corner. But corner should have never been given as player was initially offside. How is this justifiable in the context of "getting it right"?
DJ
Moderator
It’s a (bad - for humorous purposes) analogy.
Again, wasn’t intended to be completely serious on this point…
What has baseball caps got to do with technology or corruption… what’s that? you weren’t being overly serious?…ah…
There’s been videos on this thread on how it works before the World Cup and it’s been used in other competitions. Unfortunately the Premier League’s current sponsorships do not allow for the tried and tested technology to be used.
I’m just hoping it’s not like an Aldi version of the M&S caterpillar (yes that’s another comedic analogy and my post has nothing to do with cake).
There’s an argument to be had here, but as UEFA and FIFA are about to trial what it would be like if referee’s actually enforced the 6 second law on goalkeepers holding the ball before instructing officials whether or not to implement said law… I wouldn’t be so sure this wouldn’t be overcomplicated for no reason.
Perhaps an assistant time clock VAR assessing the VAR on whether or not they started the clock on time before deciding how long they’ve got to decide, then double check that and add stoppage time on…
Johnny Comelately
Star Player
Var decided that Forest shouldn't get 3 penalties against Everton. Not even the one where Ashley Young took out the plyer with a sliding tackle from behind nor the one when the ball hit Young's arm in almost a carbon copy of the handball penalty given against Smith in the United game. It's useless and it's pointless because it relies on humans to make decisions and so now the onfield officials have got demonstrably worse because they assume any mistakes will be picked up by var. It's cr@p and it should go for all the reasons DJ has named but it won't and maybe in 10 years time they'll get it right.
Kudos
UTC Legend
Why bother with a referee on the pitch then?
SlowDownDerek
UTC Legend
This is surely disingenuous. People have made clear that their main issue is the disruption to the enjoyment of the game. Even if it were 100% accurate I personally would still think it's not a price worth paying and the fact that it has not got close to avoiding controversial decisions means it is absolutely not worth it. It has taken away from people's enjoyment and not added anything like the improvements it was supposed to.
Kudos
UTC Legend
Sorry, it's just tiresome that as soon as I think I've stripped away the argument that the technology is bad that it just pops right back again through sarcastic humour.
I guess this is ultimately just a circle jerk thread like the Brexit one, where one opinion is valid and we all snigger at 'clever quips' from Twitter.
USCherry
UTC Legend
Based on stuff I have googled, it seems that VAR is not as popular here in england as it is in other (european) leagues. I wonder why that is? Is it how it has been implemented here vs there? I can't imagine that German, Spanish, Italian fans are less passionate than english ones
Toronto John
Fans' Favourite
The other thing that I will add, again from NA sports, is that the concept of "clear and obvious" has gone by the wayside. NFL, I think, toyed with the idea of the field-side monitor going off after a period of time (my recollection was under 60 seconds) in the context that if it was not so clear that it could be resolved within that time, it was not "clear and obvious" and the call stood. MLB has been the latest culprit, especially on things like hit batsman where it is really hard to tell if the ball was deflected or not. Reviews can take well into 3-4 minutes.
The other complication, which I suppose is reasonable (but again was it part of the initial concept?) is that when a play is reviewed they open up other elements of the play, then it is triage of letting the call stand or not based on not only the call, but also accompanying calls that may not have been made on the play itself. Examples get a bit complicated, but happy to provide if requested.
The other complication, which I suppose is reasonable (but again was it part of the initial concept?) is that when a play is reviewed they open up other elements of the play, then it is triage of letting the call stand or not based on not only the call, but also accompanying calls that may not have been made on the play itself. Examples get a bit complicated, but happy to provide if requested.
RobTrent
UTC Legend
But you can’t strip away the argument an y more than I can for making the argument that it’s not really improved it.
ForHeavensSake
Reserves
ForHeavensSake
Reserves
Yes, one of the big no no for me is the fact they change the laws to help VAR and not using VAR to support what were the rules. The handball rule is now so confusing as is a foul on the edge/entering the box, or the "not enough for me" but would be a foul anywhere else on the pitch. It's become a mess, and as you write, removing the emotional aspect of so much in the game.No one knows where to draw the line...that's the problem with that United goal.
We could just get rid of all the players and replace them with AI robots. Let us see how far technology can really advance the game.
They'll be so clever they'll never be offside.
Or of course, we could just keep it as the beautiful game and accept human error and appreciate that you'll never get everything 100% right, like life. Enjoy the emotions, the unbridled ecstasy of a goal, foaming at the mouth rage of seeing something you believe is unjust...only to get home later and see it wasn't as clear cut as you thought at the time.
All this never really knowing what's going on, all these changes in the law to try and make everything binary when football is and always will be subjective.
