Cardiffdaffs
Well-known member
This can happen. . We can laugh (involving an ex player too)
I think it's the execution, rather than the concept, that's the problem.its the human game of football - it worked well enough for over 130 seasons.
its the concept of VAR that is the travesty for football.
its the human game of football - it worked well enough for over 130 seasons.
its the concept of VAR that is the travesty for football.
I think it's the execution, rather than the concept, that's the problem.
Matters of fact should be reliant on technology (and therefore provide an instant decision) and the subjective decisions should go to VAR less.
Goal line decisions is a good example of how the technology can work.
There's nothing wrong with the concept of VAR.
It's still just bad refereeing decisions and implementation causing the problem, not the idea of correcting decisions missed or wrongly made on field.
Here Rotherham have went 2-0 down because a referee somehow thought a player's arm was in the box when he wasn't even close to being stood in it.
It's a shocking decision.
They already have margin for error but it's implemented on the selection of which video frame to use. That's why you are seeing far fewer of them than you did the first VAR season. The referees choose which spot to use for defender and attacker and the computer works out which one is closest to the goal. There is no need to add in chunky lines or anything because the computer is making the binary decision off 2 data points. The lines are just a visual representation of the selection, nobody is hand drawing them.Said it before, but the whole use of it is flawed. It was meant to identify "clear and obvious errors" yet it's used to analyse the most marginal of decisions, especially when it comes to offside.
To me the best thing they could do is make the line a thousand times thicker, and if the player is still outside of that line then, then you can quite clearly claim it's a "clear and obvious error". Because someones shoelace is ahead of the last man then that to me is not "clear and obvious".
They already have margin for error but it's implemented on the selection of which video frame to use. That's why you are seeing far fewer of them than you did the first VAR season. The referees choose which spot to use for defender and attacker and the computer works out which one is closest to the goal. There is no need to add in chunky lines or anything because the computer is making the binary decision off 2 data points. The lines are just a visual representation of the selection, nobody is hand drawing them.
Referees are determining far too many games by getting major decisions wrong. Sunderland blatantly hand balled it against Leeds the other day and got away with it. As much as I dislike Leeds, that could cost them promotion.
Clear and obvious is for subjective decisions. Offside is not subjective. You are either on or off. The VAR methodology allows more goals because it stops linesmen incorrectly flagging.But as you say it's a binary choice made by a computer, however I think that misses the "clear and obvious bit".
If someone is 5 yards offside, then that's "clear and obvious" whereas if someones shoelace is offside then the computer will recognise that and be factually correct, but to me that's not "clear and obvious".