VAR ... is this the logic they will use

[Bosscat]

https://youtu.be/H9PY_3E3h2c" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;







OK it was just an excuse for yet another Monty Python clip

[CombatClaret]

Terrible.
Clear and obvious mistakes?? Going to ruin some great footballing moves.

EBnDHDxXYAEb9ow (1).jpg (51.78 KiB) Viewed 9562 times

[BOYSIE31]

Really been used well one goal on and one off - perfect in today's game

[CombatClaret]

Something can still be 'correct' and sh1t

[Tall Paul]

Really been used well one goal on and one off - perfect in today's game

Might be the first time I've ever agreed with you

[ClaretSteve]

I don’t like it. I can see it being a mess this season.

[Vegas Claret]

i don't see how that first goal was ruled out, Jesus couldn't score with his arm so how is he off ?

[cricketfieldclarets]

Terrible.
Clear and obvious mistakes?? Going to ruin some great footballing moves.

EBnDHDxXYAEb9ow (1).jpg

Exactly the sort of disgraceful decisions I knew would happen. So much for advantage to the attacking team.

Will kill the attacking flow and excitement

[Tall Paul]

i don't see how that first goal was ruled out, Jesus couldn't score with his arm so how is he off ?

He can score with his shoulder though.

[Hibsclaret]

And as for the nonsense of retaking pens....how much advantage does the penalty taker need over the keeper. They are almost giving a goal if they are checking the feet on the line when a pen is missed... pathetic

Let’s see if they penalise the penalty taker if he stalls in his run up. Really is nonsense

[Rowls]

Terrible.
Clear and obvious mistakes?? Going to ruin some great footballing moves.

EBnDHDxXYAEb9ow (1).jpg

I'd like to see them getting rid of the graphics and, instead of having it judged by the millimetre we have a panel of 3 video referees who decide "was the player broadly level or not?"

[jtv]

And as for the nonsense of retaking pens....how much advantage does the penalty taker need over the keeper. They are almost giving a goal if they are checking the feet on the line when a pen is missed... pathetic

Apparently retaken because Declan Rice encroached and he was the first player on the ball after the save

[Vegas Claret]

He can score with his shoulder though.

how much of his shoulder was off ? I'm with Rowls, if that's the degree to which they are going to I'll find else to do with my time

[Tall Paul]

Apparently the graphics used by the VAR team are much more precise than the ones we see.

[Vegas Claret]

Apparently the graphics used by the VAR team are much more precise than the ones we see.

so they can decide if he is 1/2 an inch off rather than a foot, not good imho and I'm pleased VAR is here

[Tall Paul]

so they can decide if he is 1/2 an inch off rather than a foot, not good imho and I'm pleased VAR is here

What do you think should be the minimum distance a player can be ahead of the last defender without being given offside?

[Vegas Claret]

What do you think should be the minimum distance a player can be ahead of the last defender without being given offside?

always an advocate of there being clear daylight between the players, advantage should always be with the attacker as it makes for better games

[chekhov]

The decisions should revert back to the linesman. “Clear and obvious” errors would be referred to the var. The example shown above wouldn’t be referred as to all intents and purposes the fellow is level.
The situation we have now is making a mockery of the game.

[cricketfieldclarets]

always an advocate of there being clear daylight between the players, advantage should always be with the attacker as it makes for better games

Agree 100 percent. Otherwise you lose strikers playing on the shoulder. Because attackers will be worried that when the balls played a camera may show their nose offside.

[Vegas Claret]

Ref doing his best to be as **** as possible

[cricketfieldclarets]

Think they need to check VAR for halftime. This is abysmal.

[NottsClaret]

Swap those two lines round and allow the goal and every VAR fanatic will say ‘see, the right decision’.

A person draws those lines on. A person decides where to freeze the frame. It’s too close.

[Juan Tanamera]

"Waiting for red card decision"
What on earth was that about?

[wilks_bfc]

"Waiting for red card decision"
What on earth was that about?

Considering no Burnley players “appeared” to complain about the challenge those of us in the stands had no idea why they were reviewing the decision

[RalphCoatesComb]

Early days but (apart from decisions not going our way) I though it went well today.

Not seen the replay of the Wood goal but if there was an offside in the build up then so be it.

If the "Waiting for Red Card Decision" stops diving, cheating and elbowing, then it will be a good thing.

[damo_whitehead]

Offside is either offside or it isn't... as long as everyone is clear on exactly what offside means, then we just have to deal with it. The controversy will come when the decision is subjective

[claptrappers_union]

Terrible.
Clear and obvious mistakes?? Going to ruin some great footballing moves.

EBnDHDxXYAEb9ow (1).jpg

With offsides it’s FACT.

Not clear and obvious

[claptrappers_union]

https://www.premierleague.com/VAR" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[Roosterbooster]

With offsides it’s FACT.

Not clear and obvious

But that's just not the case.
Even if a player is technically either on or off without a grey area, the tools used in VAR to decide this are created by man, and are therefore still subject to a margin of error.
For example, when you pass a football, you are actually in contact with the ball for a fraction of a second, which is not an infinitely small time. The relative positions of the attacking and defending players will change during this time, and so it just depends which frame picks up the "playing of the ball". It could be at the start of the ball being played, or the end. And this could theoretically alter the outcome.
Also, the lines drawn from the players shoulders also come from a human's interpretation, whether that be added onto the freezed frame directly, or added on automatically by a human designed algorithm. Yet again, more potential error.
And the final biggie. A player interfering with play is a subjective interpretation.
Potential errors everywhere. It is absolutely not black and white fact. It's just a best guess.

[claptrappers_union]

Im not arguing that... I totally get it. I'm just saying the 'clear and obvious' part doesn't come into play, he is either onside or offside according to the technology.

I misunderstood it for ages, because the pundits were harping on with the 'clear and obvious' statements all the time.

[Granny WeatherWax]

And as for the nonsense of retaking pens....how much advantage does the penalty taker need over the keeper. They are almost giving a goal if they are checking the feet on the line when a pen is missed... pathetic

Let’s see if they penalise the penalty taker if he stalls in his run up. Really is nonsense

This

[Claretmatt4]

But that's just not the case.
Even if a player is technically either on or off without a grey area, the tools used in VAR to decide this are created by man, and are therefore still subject to a margin of error.
For example, when you pass a football, you are actually in contact with the ball for a fraction of a second, which is not an infinitely small time. The relative positions of the attacking and defending players will change during this time, and so it just depends which frame picks up the "playing of the ball". It could be at the start of the ball being played, or the end. And this could theoretically alter the outcome.
Also, the lines drawn from the players shoulders also come from a human's interpretation, whether that be added onto the freezed frame directly, or added on automatically by a human designed algorithm. Yet again, more potential error.
And the final biggie. A player interfering with play is a subjective interpretation.
Potential errors everywhere. It is absolutely not black and white fact. It's just a best guess.

Disagree. You're either offside or not. It's like goal line technology, it's either over the line or it isn't...

[dsr]

But that's just not the case.
Even if a player is technically either on or off without a grey area, the tools used in VAR to decide this are created by man, and are therefore still subject to a margin of error.
For example, when you pass a football, you are actually in contact with the ball for a fraction of a second, which is not an infinitely small time. The relative positions of the attacking and defending players will change during this time, and so it just depends which frame picks up the "playing of the ball". It could be at the start of the ball being played, or the end. And this could theoretically alter the outcome.
Also, the lines drawn from the players shoulders also come from a human's interpretation, whether that be added onto the freezed frame directly, or added on automatically by a human designed algorithm. Yet again, more potential error.
And the final biggie. A player interfering with play is a subjective interpretation.
Potential errors everywhere. It is absolutely not black and white fact. It's just a best guess.

Exactly.

For the City goal to be proven offside, the VAR official must have done the following:

1. Assessed exactly the part of the City man's shoulder that qualifies as "not handball" as opposed to the arm which is handball. The laws don't specify to the exact fraction where this dividing line is, but the VAR man assessed it to the exact fraction anyway.

2. Assessed whether we are talking about offside being at the moment the boot first touches the ball, or the ball leaves the boot. The two are about 1/100th of a second apart. The laws don't specify which it is, but the VAR official must have been certain.

3. Confirmed that the picture used to judge offside was taken at the exact instant of the ball being played (or leaving the boot). Not 1/300th of a second earlier, not 1/300th of a second later. I doubt that the film was recording 300 frames a second, so the VAR man must have been certain that the snap just happened to exactly coincide.

Why 1/300th of a second? Because in 1/300th of a second, a sprinting footballer coevers 1 inch. If offside is to be judged to 1 inch, then that is the minimum frame speed that can be used.

The point being that the VAR man didn't do all that. The VAR man had technology that isn't good enough to show offside to the inch, so he took the technology he had and he took a guess. This is Not Good Enough. If the technology isn't good enough to decide whether the man was in front or behind (level having been abolished for VAR games), then the man should be assumed to be level. They shouldn't be guessing.

[martin_p]

Exactly.

For the City goal to be proven offside, the VAR official must have done the following:

1. Assessed exactly the part of the City man's shoulder that qualifies as "not handball" as opposed to the arm which is handball. The laws don't specify to the exact fraction where this dividing line is, but the VAR man assessed it to the exact fraction anyway.

2. Assessed whether we are talking about offside being at the moment the boot first touches the ball, or the ball leaves the boot. The two are about 1/100th of a second apart. The laws don't specify which it is, but the VAR official must have been certain.

3. Confirmed that the picture used to judge offside was taken at the exact instant of the ball being played (or leaving the boot). Not 1/300th of a second earlier, not 1/300th of a second later. I doubt that the film was recording 300 frames a second, so the VAR man must have been certain that the snap just happened to exactly coincide.

Why 1/300th of a second? Because in 1/300th of a second, a sprinting footballer coevers 1 inch. If offside is to be judged to 1 inch, then that is the minimum frame speed that can be used.

The point being that the VAR man didn't do all that. The VAR man had technology that isn't good enough to show offside to the inch, so he took the technology he had and he took a guess. This is Not Good Enough. If the technology isn't good enough to decide whether the man was in front or behind (level having been abolished for VAR games), then the man should be assumed to be level. They shouldn't be guessing.

As long as it’s used consistently it doesn’t really matter. The VAR official has taken the last frame where the ball is in contact with the attackers foot and taken a consistent view as to what the ‘shoulder’ is. He’s taken the point of the shoulder for each player which seems reasonable. Having done that he then has to take the answer the technology gives him, I.e. offside.

[dsr]

As long as it’s used consistently it doesn’t really matter. The VAR official has taken the last frame where the ball is in contact with the attackers foot and taken a consistent view as to what the ‘shoulder’ is. He’s taken the point of the shoulder for each player which seems reasonable. Having done that he then has to take the answer the technology gives him, I.e. offside.

Why does he have to take that? If you don't have enough information to decide, than no amount of spurious semi-scientific manipulation will make it so. In cricket, for a run out, if (due to limitations of film speed) one frame shows the wicket intact and the batsman out of his crease, and the next frame shows the wicket broken and the batsman home, they don't just take a guess. They say not enough information, so not out.

If the pictures do not prove whether the forward was an inch forward of the defender, or vice versa, then instead of taking a guess based on insufficient information, they ought to say "too close to call - so level". That's what linesmen do in real time; why should VAR be different?

[Roosterbooster]

Disagree. You're either offside or not. It's like goal line technology, it's either over the line or it isn't...

Well you completely missed my point.
Yes, you are either offside or not. (Apart from the subjective interpretation of interference).
But the technology is not good enough to show for certain either way. And compared to goal-line technology, there are many more areas which can introduce error, plus the potential delay in decision making is much. much greater

[Roosterbooster]

As long as it’s used consistently it doesn’t really matter. The VAR official has taken the last frame where the ball is in contact with the attackers foot and taken a consistent view as to what the ‘shoulder’ is. He’s taken the point of the shoulder for each player which seems reasonable. Having done that he then has to take the answer the technology gives him, I.e. offside.

Consistent methods with inherent errors lead to consistent inaccuracies. That is not fair process.

[edlass]

I can't see that jesus gained anything from that positioning that an onside player wouldn't have had but I suppose they have to draw the line somewhere. I'm not sure how to improve it. Maybe make it all of the attackers body being ahead of all of the defender is offside like a goal or maybe that's too much of an advantage for team like City. Wood might like it though

[Rileybobs]

It doesn’t matter how you re-work the offside rule, the technology will still leave a relatively small margin of error. We just need to accept that offside is now judged by the video frame when the foot connects with the ball. It will save countless repetitive discussions about it.

[IanMcL]

A part of the body being ahead is natural and not offside.
A cross comes in from the wing...how can a striker see past his defender, to watch the ball, without sticking his head round his body?

Daylight has to be the answer. Otherwise, it counts ad level. Football will be dpolf otherwise.

I feel sorry for Raheem Sterling. That was the atrocious decision which proves the point. The 'allowed' goal owing to big bum, is just as farcical...or is that arseical?

[Rileybobs]

A part of the body being ahead is natural and not offside.
A cross comes in from the wing...how can a striker see past his defender, to watch the ball, without sticking his head round his body?

Daylight has to be the answer. Otherwise, it counts ad level. Football will be dpolf otherwise.

I feel sorry for Raheem Sterling. That was the atrocious decision which proves the point. The 'allowed' goal owing to big bum, is just as farcical...or is that arseical?

There will still be the same margin for error if there had to be daylight between the players. And how do you define daylight between players?

[FactualFrank]

We're certainly breaking the record for tears.

[Spiral]

With the introduction of VAR the standard by which an offside decision is made is approaching uniformity, that's the fundamental point. By what natural or written law is an attacker offered an advantage in any dubious offside decision? By what natural or written law is a defender offered an advantage in any dubious offside decision? The answer is that neither the attacker nor the defender is offered an 'advantage' in the laws of the game because the law is defined in absolutist terms, so a line must be drawn...figuratively and literally. Folk can talk about 1/3000th of an inch, and I'll respond, "why stop there? Why not narrow it down to the Planck scale?", to which the answer would be, "we don't have the technology." So here we are, making the best with such technology as we have available. Deal with it. It's uniform, which is better than what we had last season.

[dsr]

By what natural or written law is an attacker offered an advantage in any dubious offside decision?

By the idea that the attacker is offside if he is in front, onside if he is behind, and onside if he is level.

It may well be that the lawmakers who changed "level" from offside to onside were trying to give the attacker the advantage of an extra Planck's Constant-worth of distance. But I doubt it. The new rules, which are being brought in by mistake rather than by design, say that there is no such thing as level and that if there is no way to tell who is in front, then you have to guess.

[Spiral]

At no point is the video assistant referee "just guessing." From my understanding a 3D line on the vertical plane, from both the attacker's and defender's furthermost legal point of contact, is determined by the technology (deduced by the best available frame), rather than a mere 2D inference of a still frame by the referee, as was common and typically seen in TV broadcast analysis in seasons prior.

I'm beginning to suspect you don't actually know how the technology works, nor the reasons for it's introduction or the standard to which it is held. You're apparently writing off the technology for not attaining utter perfection in the application of, what looks like, your suspect interpretation of the offside rule.

[wickdkewlclaret]

At leat Arsenal won’t score against us this season.

[IanMcL]

There will still be the same margin for error if there had to be daylight between the players. And how do you define daylight between players?

Well if they can determine a shoulder and a bum and make a decision, then daylight would be easy. I would exclude the arm from the picture, as a chasing atm could be ahead of the torso.

The VAR is supposed to be clear and fair not scientifically disect a big nose from a big bum.

[CharlieinNewMexico]

Honestly I was just happy with a reasonably loose "even is on"

Once we're dissecting things to the umpteenth millimeter whether it was for us or against us I think we're going backwards

[KlyBfc]

For me if the VAR officials need to watch more than two replays then the decision on the field should stand. If they need to go to the lines and to millimetres then decisions either way should stand.

Some have said offside is offside which is correct (except when we unlock the active inactive debate). However taking cricket as the example you would say the ball hitting the wickets is matter of fact therefore the player should be out (similar to offside is offside) if the tracker points at it. However they quite rightly go with umpires decisions in close calls.... and so should football, or even better just chuck it all out and stick with just improving the quality the refs and linesman (which as proved at our game yesterday is quite a decent standard anyway)

[edlass]

My feeling isn't that the technology doesn't work, I think it's fine. I just hadn't even considered that a goal like that would be disallowed. I feel like when the rule was invented it was probably just to stop people "goal hanging"! But like I said they have to draw the line somewhere (literally). I'll still cheer when we score but there's no way I can be as certain we've scored with those margins! I bet we will all be used to it soon.