VAR

1041 posts
User avatar
genome
Hob Nob Super-Addict
Posts: 19045
Joined: 08 Jul 2012 13:29
Location: Universe

Re: VAR

by genome » 25 Jun 2019 10:05

Winston Biscuit
The Enfield Royal71 a lot of what I know is proprietary information that I'm not allowed to talk about.


:lol:


I'm going to use that in debate from now on.

"I disagree with your viewpoint - I could argue against it and prove you wrong, but I'm not allowed to say."

User avatar
Hendo
Hob Nob Addict
Posts: 7099
Joined: 25 Mar 2012 20:53
Location: Mornings are for coffee and contemplation

Re: VAR

by Hendo » 25 Jun 2019 10:24

genome
Winston Biscuit
The Enfield Royal71 a lot of what I know is proprietary information that I'm not allowed to talk about.


:lol:


I'm going to use that in debate from now on.

"I disagree with your viewpoint - I could argue against it and prove you wrong, but I'm not allowed to say."



User avatar
exileinleeds
Hob Nob Regular
Posts: 4656
Joined: 01 Dec 2005 12:22
Location: Immaturing with age

Re: VAR

by exileinleeds » 25 Jun 2019 10:56

Remember when you were a child, there was always that one kid who 'did karate' - but couldn't fight because 'his hands were licensed as deadly weapons' and he wasn't allowed to....but he was at least a black belt if not more....

User avatar
Hoop Blah
Hob Nob Super-Addict
Posts: 13937
Joined: 14 Apr 2004 09:00
Location: I told you so.....

Re: VAR

by Hoop Blah » 25 Jun 2019 13:27

Snowflake Royal My personal view was that the elbow was an misjudged arm across the chest that rode up and hit the face rather than actual violent conduct, so I was just about ok with the yellow.

I think it was clear the officials had seen it, so I'm presuming VAR decided that was a fair interpretation.

On the Kirby pen shout, it wasn't VAR that took ages, it was the ref thinking and watching the replays. She could have cut that time dramatically herself. Personally I thought it was a foul, but a fair advantage played given we then got a shot at goal.

I don't think the Cameroon players got upset because the decisions weren't on screen. They got upset because they WERE on screen and felt Duggan should have been called off and that the butt of a heel when walking away from goal in the build up shouldn't be called off. I think they were also (justifiably) upset that a loose control and claim by the keeper was called a free kick that they conceded the first goal to.

The final yellow, I've mixed views on. You can give the benefit and say it's just poorly timed, or you can say it's cynical and nasty. It wasn't a clear leg breaker though, more a nasty rake.


And this post is a good example of why replays don't necessarily help matters too much.

The ref has to take their time over making a decision when watching replays. It's the heat of battle and there's probably millions watching on TV and in the ground, who are ready to jump on any decision, so they're going to watch it more times than necessary because it could be career threatening to make a mistake.

In terms of the specific decisions you mention, most comment I've seen has been the opposite. The back-pass was a back-pass for me, and if there's any doubt there the keeper should just clear it. The two offside decisions were correct, although I'd argue the Cameroon player wasn't gaining any advantage by being marginally offside and so I would rather that wasn't given.

Replays can help a referee be more informed, which is a good thing, but it doesn't make the decision less debatable in matters of opinion.

Sanguine
Hob Nob Super-Addict
Posts: 13415
Joined: 27 Feb 2013 14:36

Re: VAR

by Sanguine » 25 Jun 2019 13:33

Hoop Blah
Replays can help a referee be more informed, which is a good thing, but it doesn't make the decision less debatable in matters of opinion.


As I've tried to express before, this is the cultural acceptance problem when it comes to VAR. It doesn't matter whether or not you agree with the decision, and it doesn't matter if the issue reviewed remains a matter of opinion. VAR gives officials an opportunity to refine that opinion - used well (and as I've said before, I'd like to see VAR officials recommending a course of action) it will improve the game. But fans need to get their head around why it is being used, beyond the yes/no decisions like over the goal line.


User avatar
Hoop Blah
Hob Nob Super-Addict
Posts: 13937
Joined: 14 Apr 2004 09:00
Location: I told you so.....

Re: VAR

by Hoop Blah » 25 Jun 2019 13:47

Sanguine
Hoop Blah
Replays can help a referee be more informed, which is a good thing, but it doesn't make the decision less debatable in matters of opinion.


As I've tried to express before, this is the cultural acceptance problem when it comes to VAR. It doesn't matter whether or not you agree with the decision, and it doesn't matter if the issue reviewed remains a matter of opinion. VAR gives officials an opportunity to refine that opinion - used well (and as I've said before, I'd like to see VAR officials recommending a course of action) it will improve the game. But fans need to get their head around why it is being used, beyond the yes/no decisions like over the goal line.


As I've tried to express before....I just don't think that the benefit of having that extra information for a referee to review their own decision is really worth the delays and interruption to the games, especially for the match going fan, or players for that matter.

The Enfield Royal71
Hob Nob Regular
Posts: 3941
Joined: 18 Sep 2018 16:00

Re: VAR

by The Enfield Royal71 » 25 Jun 2019 14:02

exileinleeds Remember when you were a child, there was always that one kid who 'did karate' - but couldn't fight because 'his hands were licensed as deadly weapons' and he wasn't allowed to....but he was at least a black belt if not more....


I actually have a brown belt in Judo and will be more then willing to show my moves off in a controlled environment. I can be extremely dangerous if I want too and if it is not in the correct and controlled manner. I was on track for the Olympic squad possibly and a black belt before I tore my ACL

User avatar
genome
Hob Nob Super-Addict
Posts: 19045
Joined: 08 Jul 2012 13:29
Location: Universe

Re: VAR

by genome » 25 Jun 2019 14:49

good grief

User avatar
Snowflake Royal
Hob Nob Super-Addict
Posts: 11743
Joined: 20 Jun 2017 17:51

Re: VAR

by Snowflake Royal » 25 Jun 2019 15:58

The Enfield Royal71
exileinleeds Remember when you were a child, there was always that one kid who 'did karate' - but couldn't fight because 'his hands were licensed as deadly weapons' and he wasn't allowed to....but he was at least a black belt if not more....


I actually have a brown belt in Judo and will be more then willing to show my moves off in a controlled environment. I can be extremely dangerous if I want too and if it is not in the correct and controlled manner. I was on track for the Olympic squad possibly and a black belt before I tore my ACL

Dd, you're a worthwhile person in your own right. There's really no need for all these extravagant claims to impress people. It doesn't work and you don't need validation.


User avatar
Snowflake Royal
Hob Nob Super-Addict
Posts: 11743
Joined: 20 Jun 2017 17:51

Re: VAR

by Snowflake Royal » 25 Jun 2019 16:02

Hoop Blah
Snowflake Royal My personal view was that the elbow was an misjudged arm across the chest that rode up and hit the face rather than actual violent conduct, so I was just about ok with the yellow.

I think it was clear the officials had seen it, so I'm presuming VAR decided that was a fair interpretation.

On the Kirby pen shout, it wasn't VAR that took ages, it was the ref thinking and watching the replays. She could have cut that time dramatically herself. Personally I thought it was a foul, but a fair advantage played given we then got a shot at goal.

I don't think the Cameroon players got upset because the decisions weren't on screen. They got upset because they WERE on screen and felt Duggan should have been called off and that the butt of a heel when walking away from goal in the build up shouldn't be called off. I think they were also (justifiably) upset that a loose control and claim by the keeper was called a free kick that they conceded the first goal to.

The final yellow, I've mixed views on. You can give the benefit and say it's just poorly timed, or you can say it's cynical and nasty. It wasn't a clear leg breaker though, more a nasty rake.


And this post is a good example of why replays don't necessarily help matters too much.

The ref has to take their time over making a decision when watching replays. It's the heat of battle and there's probably millions watching on TV and in the ground, who are ready to jump on any decision, so they're going to watch it more times than necessary because it could be career threatening to make a mistake.

In terms of the specific decisions you mention, most comment I've seen has been the opposite. The back-pass was a back-pass for me, and if there's any doubt there the keeper should just clear it. The two offside decisions were correct, although I'd argue the Cameroon player wasn't gaining any advantage by being marginally offside and so I would rather that wasn't given.

Replays can help a referee be more informed, which is a good thing, but it doesn't make the decision less debatable in matters of opinion.

I'm well aware I'm often in a minority view. :lol:

It's a fair point the ref wants to be certain, and of course they're usually in a conversation with the VAR talking about why it's been referred

In 10 years time people will be wondering what all the fuss was about VAR being Introduced.

The Enfield Royal71
Hob Nob Regular
Posts: 3941
Joined: 18 Sep 2018 16:00

Re: VAR

by The Enfield Royal71 » 25 Jun 2019 17:06

Snowflake Royal
The Enfield Royal71
exileinleeds Remember when you were a child, there was always that one kid who 'did karate' - but couldn't fight because 'his hands were licensed as deadly weapons' and he wasn't allowed to....but he was at least a black belt if not more....


I actually have a brown belt in Judo and will be more then willing to show my moves off in a controlled environment. I can be extremely dangerous if I want too and if it is not in the correct and controlled manner. I was on track for the Olympic squad possibly and a black belt before I tore my ACL

Dd, you're a worthwhile person in your own right. There's really no need for all these extravagant claims to impress people. It doesn't work and you don't need validation.


Thanks Ian. Its nice to know that you think im worthwhile and meaningful in this world.

User avatar
Hoop Blah
Hob Nob Super-Addict
Posts: 13937
Joined: 14 Apr 2004 09:00
Location: I told you so.....

Re: VAR

by Hoop Blah » 26 Jun 2019 10:15

Snowflake Royal In 10 years time people will be wondering what all the fuss was about VAR being Introduced.


And the game will be worse off for it, especially for the match going fan who will have become (more of) a side issue to the arm chair fan who wants to argue every decision on Twitter.

User avatar
Hoop Blah
Hob Nob Super-Addict
Posts: 13937
Joined: 14 Apr 2004 09:00
Location: I told you so.....

Re: VAR

by Hoop Blah » 26 Jun 2019 12:50

Matthew Syed wrote in The Times All my worst fears about VAR are being systematically confirmed. A well-intentioned innovation has slowed the game down, undermined its zest and corroded its fluidity. Indeed, VAR is gradually turning football into a branch of the justice system. A game constructed upon joy and the spontaneous outpouring of emotion has become trapped in a web of legalese.

Lest we forget, the purpose of football is not the strict enforcement of codes and rules. The teleology of the game does not consist in the pursuit of absolute accuracy in adjudication. On the contrary, the purpose of football is joy. As a branch of modern life, it creates moments of collective euphoria of a unique and compelling kind.

Neuroscientists have suggested that the eruption of ecstasy that fans experience in the stands, or even while watching at home or in the pub, is comparable to the effects of taking an opioid. They point to the evidence from brain scanners that reveals the activation of pleasure centres of the brain such as the ventral pallidum and the insular cortex.

However this conception is mistaken. The “joy” of an opioid is individualistic. Heroin addicts become detached from reality, falling ever deeper into stupefied solipsism. The joy of football, on the other hand, is quintessentially social. It consists of the contagion that transmits from the footballer who has just scored — a blockbuster strike, perhaps, or the drama of Raheem Sterling’s well-taken stoppage-time “winner” against Tottenham Hotspur in the quarter-finals of the Champions League — to the stands and, from there, to the football-watching world.

We have all seen pictures that reveal this symbiosis between participants and spectators, players and fans; a Mexican wave of euphoria that doesn’t just stimulate the pleasure centres of the brain but creates a curious (and thrilling) sense of oneness. Anthropologists argue that since at least the time of the Neolithic revolution, when the first larger-scale tribes and clans emerged, humans have had this peculiar capacity for what we could call collective emotion.

Football triggers these feelings for many complex reasons but principal among them is the phenomenon of “the goal”. The founders of the game inadvertently happened upon a rather beautiful formula: they gave the principal event rarity value. Many matches finish without a single goal being scored and most end with fewer than four. Superficial observers of football have often construed this lack of goalscoring as a weakness but it is, in fact, the game’s great strength.

It explains why goals are met with delirium, such as when Marco Tardelli scored for Italy against West Germany in the World Cup final in 1982, or Falcão’s strike for Brazil against Italy earlier in that tournament. If you are near a computer, look at the scenes with which these goals were met or take a gander at the Sergio Agüero goal that won the Premier League title for Manchester City in 2012 — fans transitioning from despair to ecstasy in the time that it took for a small ball to ripple the net.

These events send tremors not just through the emotional fabric of football stadiums but through the emotional fabric of modern nation states. I am guessing most of us can remember where we were when David Platt volleyed home against Belgium or Gary Lineker equalised against West Germany in 1990. We may even remember the stranger we hugged at such a moment, as I did in a pub in Richmond when David Beckham scored his penalty against Argentina in 2002.

This kind of intense emotion cannot be put on hold by pressing a ventricle pause button, only to be reactivated a few minutes later when a sequence of moving frames have been put through the meat grinder of remote officialdom. This kind of spontaneous joy cannot be placed in suspended animation while a quasi-jury sit in a satellite truck poring over whether a player was in an offside position in the build-up to the goal, or whether the goalkeeper stepped a millimetre off the line during a penalty, before communicating their verdict to an on-field referee via an earpiece.

Justice is an important consideration in all sport. Players who work hard to get to the top have a reasonable expectation that the rules will be applied to within a close approximation of the truth. Football would descend into absurdity if interpretation of the laws were to become decoupled from empirical reality. But to elevate the principle of accuracy above that of spontaneity is to misunderstand the meaning of football, as well as its anthropology, a point that is becoming ever more apparent during the Women’s World Cup.

The debate over VAR has, in this sense, been misconceived. The technology should have been introduced only after it had been shown to work instantly or, at the very least, not appreciably slower than it takes for an assistant referee to raise a flag. As the reality of this technology takes hold, we are going to increasingly see players and fans swallowing their emotions, holding back the floodgates of joy, only to be replaced by a more monochrome reality.

Over time, and as the attrition bites ever deeper, this could prove calamitous to football.


User avatar
John Madejski's Wallet
Hob Nob Subscriber
Hob Nob Subscriber
Posts: 13823
Joined: 10 Apr 2005 00:22
Location: Anyone who lives within their means shows a serious lack of imagination

Re: VAR

by John Madejski's Wallet » 26 Jun 2019 16:29

Yep

User avatar
Franchise FC
Hob Nob Regular
Posts: 4472
Joined: 22 May 2007 16:24
Location: The Frozen North

Re: VAR

by Franchise FC » 26 Jun 2019 17:17

For me it's about how the fans, and particularly the next generation of fans, relate to the game.

When I was a kid (I know, different millennium and all that - with dinosaur droppings for goal posts) I could relate to what I saw at Elm Park and try to emulate it on the pitch/park I played on. (Trying to run bow-legged to emulate Robin Friday was not one of my best moments).

In the 21st century, kids are more and more used to having everything immediately. Even a 2, 3, 4 minute wait to know whether to celebrate a goal will kill the excitement and that's what brings the kids back as fans later in life.

Good grief - when did I turn into such a grumpy old git :roll:

User avatar
Snowflake Royal
Hob Nob Super-Addict
Posts: 11743
Joined: 20 Jun 2017 17:51

Re: VAR

by Snowflake Royal » 26 Jun 2019 19:28

Hoop Blah
Snowflake Royal In 10 years time people will be wondering what all the fuss was about VAR being Introduced.


And the game will be worse off for it, especially for the match going fan who will have become (more of) a side issue to the arm chair fan who wants to argue every decision on Twitter.

Don't buy that for a second.

User avatar
Hoop Blah
Hob Nob Super-Addict
Posts: 13937
Joined: 14 Apr 2004 09:00
Location: I told you so.....

Re: VAR

by Hoop Blah » 26 Jun 2019 20:24

Snowflake Royal
Hoop Blah
Snowflake Royal In 10 years time people will be wondering what all the fuss was about VAR being Introduced.


And the game will be worse off for it, especially for the match going fan who will have become (more of) a side issue to the arm chair fan who wants to argue every decision on Twitter.

Don't buy that for a second.


On what basis? VAR for a match going fan is a pretty poor experience, and it's already taken some of the excitement away.

It may become less awkward as things bed in, but I can't see how it won't lessen the true match day experience for those in the ground.

User avatar
Jack Celliers
Member
Posts: 973
Joined: 29 Apr 2004 08:43
Location: Buried in sand

Re: VAR

by Jack Celliers » 27 Jun 2019 06:25

Hoop Blah
Matthew Syed wrote in The Times All my worst fears about VAR are being systematically confirmed. A well-intentioned innovation has slowed the game down, undermined its zest and corroded its fluidity. Indeed, VAR is gradually turning football into a branch of the justice system. A game constructed upon joy and the spontaneous outpouring of emotion has become trapped in a web of legalese.

Lest we forget, the purpose of football is not the strict enforcement of codes and rules. The teleology of the game does not consist in the pursuit of absolute accuracy in adjudication. On the contrary, the purpose of football is joy. As a branch of modern life, it creates moments of collective euphoria of a unique and compelling kind.

Neuroscientists have suggested that the eruption of ecstasy that fans experience in the stands, or even while watching at home or in the pub, is comparable to the effects of taking an opioid. They point to the evidence from brain scanners that reveals the activation of pleasure centres of the brain such as the ventral pallidum and the insular cortex.

However this conception is mistaken. The “joy” of an opioid is individualistic. Heroin addicts become detached from reality, falling ever deeper into stupefied solipsism. The joy of football, on the other hand, is quintessentially social. It consists of the contagion that transmits from the footballer who has just scored — a blockbuster strike, perhaps, or the drama of Raheem Sterling’s well-taken stoppage-time “winner” against Tottenham Hotspur in the quarter-finals of the Champions League — to the stands and, from there, to the football-watching world.

We have all seen pictures that reveal this symbiosis between participants and spectators, players and fans; a Mexican wave of euphoria that doesn’t just stimulate the pleasure centres of the brain but creates a curious (and thrilling) sense of oneness. Anthropologists argue that since at least the time of the Neolithic revolution, when the first larger-scale tribes and clans emerged, humans have had this peculiar capacity for what we could call collective emotion.

Football triggers these feelings for many complex reasons but principal among them is the phenomenon of “the goal”. The founders of the game inadvertently happened upon a rather beautiful formula: they gave the principal event rarity value. Many matches finish without a single goal being scored and most end with fewer than four. Superficial observers of football have often construed this lack of goalscoring as a weakness but it is, in fact, the game’s great strength.

It explains why goals are met with delirium, such as when Marco Tardelli scored for Italy against West Germany in the World Cup final in 1982, or Falcão’s strike for Brazil against Italy earlier in that tournament. If you are near a computer, look at the scenes with which these goals were met or take a gander at the Sergio Agüero goal that won the Premier League title for Manchester City in 2012 — fans transitioning from despair to ecstasy in the time that it took for a small ball to ripple the net.

These events send tremors not just through the emotional fabric of football stadiums but through the emotional fabric of modern nation states. I am guessing most of us can remember where we were when David Platt volleyed home against Belgium or Gary Lineker equalised against West Germany in 1990. We may even remember the stranger we hugged at such a moment, as I did in a pub in Richmond when David Beckham scored his penalty against Argentina in 2002.

This kind of intense emotion cannot be put on hold by pressing a ventricle pause button, only to be reactivated a few minutes later when a sequence of moving frames have been put through the meat grinder of remote officialdom. This kind of spontaneous joy cannot be placed in suspended animation while a quasi-jury sit in a satellite truck poring over whether a player was in an offside position in the build-up to the goal, or whether the goalkeeper stepped a millimetre off the line during a penalty, before communicating their verdict to an on-field referee via an earpiece.

Justice is an important consideration in all sport. Players who work hard to get to the top have a reasonable expectation that the rules will be applied to within a close approximation of the truth. Football would descend into absurdity if interpretation of the laws were to become decoupled from empirical reality. But to elevate the principle of accuracy above that of spontaneity is to misunderstand the meaning of football, as well as its anthropology, a point that is becoming ever more apparent during the Women’s World Cup.

The debate over VAR has, in this sense, been misconceived. The technology should have been introduced only after it had been shown to work instantly or, at the very least, not appreciably slower than it takes for an assistant referee to raise a flag. As the reality of this technology takes hold, we are going to increasingly see players and fans swallowing their emotions, holding back the floodgates of joy, only to be replaced by a more monochrome reality.

Over time, and as the attrition bites ever deeper, this could prove calamitous to football.


This reminds me of...


Case by case, VAR is working, but it's overall impact on the game is pretty toxic. Football should be exciting, and a goal is the greatest feeling in the world, closely followed by a red card for an opposition player. The worst bits of the game are discussions about handball and tight offside decisions. VAR doesn't have the right priorities: it reduces the impact of the former, while stressing the importance of the latter.

User avatar
Silver Fox
Hob Nob Super-Addict
Posts: 19070
Joined: 15 Apr 2004 10:02
Location: From the Andes to the indies in my undies

Re: VAR

by Silver Fox » 03 Jul 2019 09:25

Another bad night for VAR last night, White's goal should have been given, there has to be a margin of error and the advantage given to the attacker when it's that close, the pictures and frame speed literally aren't available to definitively say she was offside there.

As for the penalty, absolutely crazy that there's nearly five minutes between the "foul" and the penalty actually being taken for an incident that was hardly definitive.

It's going to ruin the football watching experience

User avatar
Stranded
Hob Nob Subscriber
Hob Nob Subscriber
Posts: 10834
Joined: 14 Apr 2004 12:42
Location: Propping up the bar in the Nags

Re: VAR

by Stranded » 03 Jul 2019 10:31

Silver Fox Another bad night for VAR last night, White's goal should have been given, there has to be a margin of error and the advantage given to the attacker when it's that close, the pictures and frame speed literally aren't available to definitively say she was offside there.

As for the penalty, absolutely crazy that there's nearly five minutes between the "foul" and the penalty actually being taken for an incident that was hardly definitive.

It's going to ruin the football watching experience


Disagree it was a bad night for VAR.

What VAR has shown is that the offside rule is pehaps no longer fit for purpose given the update in Tech. Did White really gain an advantage by being a toe ahead of the defence, if VAR is here to stay then the rule probably needs to be revisited - i.e. maybe a player needs to half a metre ahead for them to be offside or all of a players body needs to be off rather than just half a foot.

As for the foul - agreed the time was stupid but there was also a substitution in that time. No reason why the ref couldn't have viewed the replays whilst that was taking place - 4th official can control the sub. Also, it was clear from the first replay that White's foot was caught by the USA defender's knee - so why they wasted time showing other inconclusive angles, I'll never know.

1041 posts

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 8 guests

It is currently 09 Apr 2020 17:40