VAR and the rules at its worse

[cricketfieldclarets]

Brighton player dives.

Spurs player gets booked. Misses next game.

Yellow cant be reviewed or rescinded.

Brighton take free kick and score.


Biggest example of how the rules and the VAR system is flawed.

Take an age to review a goal thats an armpit offside. But cant review a dive and the card and ban cant be rescinded.

[Barry_Chuckle]

Totally agree, FARCE!
And once again, cheats prosper

[Funkydrummer]

Obviously I'm not a fan of either club, but that incident and the outcome was nothing short of a disgrace.

Not that I feel sorry for moanreenio mind.

[Pstotto]

With computer vision for self-drive cars, I'm not entirely sure but I think they use lasers to guauge objects and distance rather like the way bats move in their environment via sonic means, in fact images like photos can be constructed from lasers in this fashion.

For VAR to work it would have to compute in real time an exact 3D model of the match that would record all location and physical contact in its entirety, though if this involved lasers it might be a health hazard of some kind.

The next thing, is do you trust Hawk-eye? It's just down to the computer programmer's word 'Oh look at the CGI re-construction IT MUST BE TRUE...'

How do you know that the videos claimed to be the action haven't been manipulated for the audience, nevermind Hawk-eye?

[dsr]

The linesman certainly needs his eyes testing. He flagged vigorously - he must have been certain he saw (from less than 10 yards away) the Brighton man being tripped. The ref had a bad angle; the lineman didn't.

Of course, he could have been flagging because he heard the ref whistle and thought he'd better back him up regardless. In which case, why bother flagging at all.

[dsr]

And the Kane disallowed goal is nonsense as well. Until the lawmakers specifically announce that the definition of level is different in VAR games than in other games, then Kane was level and the goal should have been given.

[Roosterbooster]

In response to the video reformatting, they probably have, but Hawk eye works on a 2D world, is it past a line or not. The technology makes a decision before the reconstruction is shown. That's just for the audience. It's the 3D world that is so complicated.

At any rate. VAR is awful and provides no benefit. It could be used in some circumstances, but I dont trust the authorities to use it wisely. So just get rid. Too subjective. Too limited. Too long to reach decisions.

A joke

[Pstotto]

How do you know the Hawk-eye decision is not fabricated?

[MACCA]

Even worse when you put spurs on your accumulator not realising it's the early kick off

[ElectroClaret]

1-1

2-1 Spurs.

[Funkydrummer]

Hurts to say this, but BHA are a decent side under Potter.

[BennyD]

They introduce VAR to eradicate mistakes from the match officials, but it is interpreted by officials that make mistakes. Tbh, I used to get p!ssed off by ref mistakes but now I yearn for the days when they made them.

[turfytopper]

Brighton player dives.

Spurs player gets booked. Misses next game.

Yellow cant be reviewed or rescinded.

Brighton take free kick and score.


Biggest example of how the rules and the VAR system is flawed.

Take an age to review a goal thats an armpit offside. But cant review a dive and the card and ban cant be rescinded.

I didn't see the incident but what you've described would not have gone to VAR anyway.

[cricketfieldclarets]

I didn't see the incident but what you've described would not have gone to VAR anyway.

That's partly my point.

[IanMcL]

And the Kane disallowed goal is nonsense as well. Until the lawmakers specifically announce that the definition of level is different in VAR games than in other games, then Kane was level and the goal should have been given.

This 'offside by a nose' thing is my pet hate. In real life, a player would be onside. If we are trying to create more not less goals, then there has to be a clear space between atracker and defender. Let it be ok to make the anticipatory lunge.

Balls being crossed have to have an attacker's head in front of a defenders body, just to see the flight.

[bobinho]

Offside is the only real and factual decision it can make. You are either on or you are off.

My problem with it is embedded in the rules. It will only be used if the match officials have made a clear and obvious mistake. A good example would be Frank Lampards goal for England v Germany. Being offside by 3mm is neither clear nor obvious and as such, there should be no need to go to VAR.

[Pstotto]

Not really. Mane's front foot was in the area as his trailing foot was clipped outside the box. According to offside technology that same technology can know for sure where somebody is over the box line.

If any of his body is in the box at the time of contact, no matter where the 'foul' was, surely it must be a penalty.

Doesn anybody know whether the detail of the penalty rule concurs with the detail of the offside rule, as I have suggested?

[dsr]

Offside is the only real and factual decision it can make. You are either on or you are off.

But with the old rules, when they changed the law so level was now onside not offside (about thirty years ago), they were specific that the idea was to give the advantage to the attacker and encourage more goals, and they were also specific that "level" meant as seen by the normal human eye.

With VAR, the new lawmakers are going away from that view. They had the choice either to keep it as it was and make "level" as seen by the normal human eye, or else they could go ridiculously exact to the nearest millimetre. They chose the latter, and by doing so they have chosen to:

1. Give the advantage back to the defence and reduce the number of goals.
2. Take the decision away from the linesman by making it literally impossible for him to get right - the human eye can't tell whether one man's shoulder is half an inch ahead of another's toe.
3. Build in long delays before giving or disallowing goals.

I don't know if they have decided to do all that because they think all those things are good things for football to have, or because they are too stupid to know what they are doing. I presume the latter. (Though in either case, they should be sacked.) But if they would just say that "level" means within reasonable limits of the human eye, then they could still use VAR, but it would be by looking at one picture, no need to draw silly lines, and we could get on with the game.

[Bullabill]

Please,please,please ......... Worst is the word Worst.

[Sean Dyche's Watch]

Please,please,please ......... Worst is the word Worst.

You're correct.

Knowing how pedantic this messageboard can be, I'm surprised nobody else commented on it before you did.

[RammyClaret61]

What makes it all worse is, VAR as been in football 5 years now. The premier league resisted and waited and waited, so they could monitor VAR and get it absolutely right when they implemented it. But after all the research they must have done, it’s still the biggest balls up ever.
People says there is always going to be teething problems with new technology. Problem with that is, it’s not new.

[Ashingtonclaret46]

Offside is the only real and factual decision it can make. You are either on or you are off.

My problem with it is embedded in the rules. It will only be used if the match officials have made a clear and obvious mistake. A good example would be Frank Lampards goal for England v Germany. Being offside by 3mm is neither clear nor obvious and as such, there should be no need to go to VAR.

Clear and obvious does not apply to offside decisions ---you are either on or off, whether it be by 3mm or whatever.
VAR Rules at the top level, whether we like it or not -----very sad state of affairs as far as I am concerned. The referee's decision used to be final -----but no longer applies in the Premier League ----how has the game survived without technology?

[RammyClaret61]

how has the game survived without technology?

It’s hasn’t, this is now a completely different ball game.