F*CK VAR

As mentioned earlier they are trying to extend the scope of VAR … who in the right mind would want to increase the scope of a project that is clearly causing problems and has many issues unresolved on its limited scope ? In what other business would this happen?

I am keen to know who is viewing the implementation of this as a success and how?

Was mentioned earlier in thread about VAR been for the people who have so much money on it. I.e owners , the one incident that springs to my mind was return from
Lockdown in the Villa v Sheff utd game and failed to intervene when the goal line technology didn’t work. This if I remember saved villa from relegation ultimately.

Possibly the people who are set to gain most from this are the good honest folk at FIFA, I imagine a license to adopt / accept the technology don’t come cheap.

And another thing, why are they looking to implement more rules to stop dissent just use the ones that are there. Yellow , 2nd yellow. Applied consistently across season and not just for a week or two to make a point will eradicate it.

As for the cynical foul sin bin. In my opinion a pull back or trip when not attempting to play ball should just be straight red and agin it stops overnight.
 
Zoophonic said:
But let the ref make the decision of whether it was deliberate or not not some knobheads in Shockley Park (stet) pouring over it forensically.
Click to expand...
But those in Stockley Park are actual referees, with more evidence to review than the ref on the pitch. In theory this should increase the amount of correct decisions (and I'd be pretty confident saying it has).

The issue is the same as it has always been - the rules, and their intepretation by humans. Just because someone is looking at multiple angles etc doesn't mean they're not simply interpreting the rules.

There are two potential solutions as I see it - either change the rules, or remove the human element by introducing AI to a much greater extent (admittedly this needs to be "fed" by a human at some point). Or we pack in with it and see the OVERALL number of correct decisions fall again.
 
changingman said:
In theory this should increase the amount of correct decisions (and I'd be pretty confident saying it has).
Click to expand...
Why are you confident it has?

If there was any incontrovertible proof then the interested parties (FIFA, FA etc) would have released it.

The fact there is no proof would make any rational thinker suspicious.

changingman said:
Or we pack in with it and see the OVERALL number of correct decisions fall again
Click to expand...
Or not. As per above.

It also raises the problem of defining what a "correct decision" is.

With subjective calls it's always going to be best guess. If the ref makes a reasonable guess then at what point does VAR overruling the decision make VAR any more correct?
 
Scrote said:
Why are you confident it has?

If there was any incontrovertible proof then the interested parties (FIFA, FA etc) would have released it.

The fact there is no proof would make any rational thinker suspicious.


Or not. As per above.

It also raises the problem of defining what a "correct decision" is.

With subjective calls it's always going to be best guess. If the ref makes a reasonable guess then at what point does VAR overruling the decision make VAR any more correct?
Click to expand...
Good point, must admit I was thinking more of VAR overall (fouls + offsides).

For offsides, there's probably a decent argument that more are picked up (and vice versa) than previous. Admittedly, it's a difficult point to argue re: fouls for the reasons you mention above.
 
Even if it wasn’t for the subjective element you are never going to get objective proof because you can’t referee the same set of games both with and without VAR. Any given incident can only happen in one game. So you can’t compare a set of incidents in a VAR game with the same set of incidents in a game that didn’t have VAR

The best you can do is to have a third cold and retrospective review of games that were subject to VAR, and based on the presumption that such a cold review is the most likely of the three subjective opinions to be correct, call that correct and judge the on field and real-time VAR decisions accordingly.

Such studies can always be shot down precisely because they are retrospective, they are still someone’s subjective opinion, and they are comparing an on field and a VAR decision in a game that had VAR. To the extent that they have value, they always suggest improvements in accuracy, but they will always be mistrusted. There can never be the “proof” some ask for. By definition, you can’t run a double blind trial of VAR.
 
There will never be impartiality whilst there are human factors. Conscious and unconscious bias will always infiltrate.
 
FishofContemplation said:
Even if it wasn’t for the subjective element you are never going to get objective proof because you can’t referee the same set of games both with and without VAR. Any given incident can only happen in one game. So you can’t compare a set of incidents in a VAR game with the same set of incidents in a game that didn’t have VAR

The best you can do is to have a third cold and retrospective review of games that were subject to VAR, and based on the presumption that such a cold review is the most likely of the three subjective opinions to be correct, call that correct and judge the on field and real-time VAR decisions accordingly.

Such studies can always be shot down precisely because they are retrospective, they are still someone’s subjective opinion, and they are comparing an on field and a VAR decision in a game that had VAR. To the extent that they have value, they always suggest improvements in accuracy, but they will always be mistrusted. There can never be the “proof” some ask for. By definition, you can’t run a double blind trial of VAR.
Click to expand...
Interesting, would there be a way to retrospectively VAR review a non-VAR game? (Not sure how you could remove all traces of referees decisions though?)

At least that might give some credence to how consistent they are in their approach and potentially point to the rules being the issue rather than the interpretation?
 
changingman said:
I'm nervous of (re)introducing intent into the equation for any infringement. It's effectively impossible to prove as the only person who knows whether they acted deliberately is the player themselves. Otherwise you're imposing a mindset on someone, based on your own perception of an incident.

The definition for me needs to consider the ball, the player's body and how the two interact, albeit it's not an easy thing to do when there are literally millions of variants.
Click to expand...
Why are you nervous? The framework as it is now isn’t working because those who are making the rules have gone too far in VAR’s usage and the operators have also shown complete incompetence in applying it.

I used to be in favour and now I’m in “get rid” camp.
 
FishofContemplation said:
Even if it wasn’t for the subjective element you are never going to get objective proof because you can’t referee the same set of games both with and without VAR. Any given incident can only happen in one game. So you can’t compare a set of incidents in a VAR game with the same set of incidents in a game that didn’t have VAR

The best you can do is to have a third cold and retrospective review of games that were subject to VAR, and based on the presumption that such a cold review is the most likely of the three subjective opinions to be correct, call that correct and judge the on field and real-time VAR decisions accordingly.

Such studies can always be shot down precisely because they are retrospective, they are still someone’s subjective opinion, and they are comparing an on field and a VAR decision in a game that had VAR. To the extent that they have value, they always suggest improvements in accuracy, but they will always be mistrusted. There can never be the “proof” some ask for. By definition, you can’t run a double blind trial of VAR.
Click to expand...
Whilst I agree to an extent, there's nothing stopping the powers that be from setting up three separate VAR rooms and letting them all cover the same match. Make the actual decision given to the ref the one that either all 3 agree on or 2/3 agree. Call a decision 'correct' when all 3 agree and call it 'contentious' when they don't. Get live feedback from the ref as to why he made the original decision and then judge the 'correct' call against this if there's an overrule.

Then get the usual pundits to give their verdicts and see how many of the 'correct' decisions they agree with.

Do the same thing with a pre-VAR set of games (presumably someone stored the videos) and see how many decisions might have been overturned without upsetting the pundits.

That'd give you a reasonable idea of how many subjective decisions actually benefitted from VAR - if the on-field decision was 'correct' then that counts against VAR.

I'd be very surprised if the end result didn't show that VAR was a waste of time for subjective decisions.
 
coluka said:
Yep I thought the first one was initially offside till you saw it again and again. As Viv said though 4 mins is more than a bit rich as they are supposed to monitor it from the second the ref gives it, Maybe they have to apply all the various angles and technology and they are a bit cr@p at applying it quickly?

I thought in real time it was a pen, you don’t drop like he did unless it hurt. Ankle kicks really do hurt and he was kicked right on the ankle. I think the slo mo makes it look softer than it was personally, so totally get why many think it wasn’t a pen

My biggest gripe on VAR is the inconsistency that you see between different officials interpreting it.
Click to expand...
Trouble is that it is very difficult for refs to be correct every time,especially in fast moving play often obstructed by other players. Rugby does better with refs and var communicating to the audience via PA. But footie players and fans have never accepted authority when there is the chance of an argument.
 
If you’re looking at the foul on the keeper, what about all the other pulling and blocking that is going on. At least one Villa player looked to be blocked so why not pull that up???
 
BobendBert said:
Was just going to post the same thing mate. Killing the game. Absolute joke.
Click to expand...
The sort of incident and decision that makes a mockery of the thing because there is more vigorous pulling and pushing on every single corner in every single game of football. If you give one, you have to give them all. Ramsey was being pulled more aggressively than anything he was doing to Foderingham.
 
viv_andersons_nana said:
The sort of incident and decision that makes a mockery of the thing because there is more vigorous pulling and pushing on every single corner in every single game of football. If you give one, you have to give them all.
Click to expand...
Even in the same bit of play you can see at least four worse offences but that’s the one that’s picked out and penalised.
 
There was a push combined with a shirt pull on Watkins in the first half that went unpunished as well.
There was an offside in the World Club Championship earlier that was literally checked in seconds using, I presume, the automatic system.
 
dooderooni said:
There was a push combined with a shirt pull on Watkins in the first half that went unpunished as well.
There was an offside in the World Club Championship earlier that was literally checked in seconds using, I presume, the automatic system.
Click to expand...
Yep it was such a clear foul and no penalty given. Pushed him over then pulled him back up. A double foul. Nothing doing.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top