Video Assistant Referee

asterdroid

White Hart Pain
yesterday's game: ref gave a foul against West Brom (where Gallagher I think got the ball but took out the man). Exact same situation as with Hojbjerg vs Brighton where VAR check gave the wrong decision.
 
In my opinion the VAR-room should have the power to overthrow the referees decision. In the Brighton game I'm sure the VAR people/person didn't agree with the decision or else the referee wouldn't have gone and looked at the event again. The problem with letting the referee decide is to much ego/pride/narcissism among referees, they always look to back up their original decision.
 

Mr. Voldemort

No More Mr Nice Guy
In my opinion the VAR-room should have the power to overthrow the referees decision. In the Brighton game I'm sure the VAR people/person didn't agree with the decision or else the referee wouldn't have gone and looked at the event again. The problem with letting the referee decide is to much ego/pride/narcissism among referees, they always look to back up their original decision.
Strangely, from what I can understand, that was the first time a referee has not reversed his decision after being referred back to the pitchside monitor. The VAR panel deliberately give the referees a chance to save some face and change their minds apparently but as you quite rightly say this prick valued his pride more and stuck to his guns.
 
The problem with VAR offside is that the rule needs to be very exact once you start measuring it.

When offside is adjudged real-time by the lino you don't need to be that exact; there's no way they could judge precisely enough.

Now that we are stopping the game, using a freeze frame* to draw lines on the pitch and player body parts, then making mm decisions... the law needs to be precise. At what point does the arm become the shoulder? Needs a precise definition now, and they decided that the end of the sleeve is the answer.

So this Bamford offside. By the rules they've had to create, that was definitely offside. There is no choice but to give it offside. A part of him that could legally score was in an offside position.

But we all look at that and say it's clearly onside, because we were all brought up in an era where the bulk of the body is what was considered on/off, not a flailing extremity.

So, for VAR to work you need to have a precise rule and stick to it. The uneasiness brought out by the Bamford decision is based on our historic and now obsolete "feel" for what an offside looks like.

Which brings me to the biggest issue: They keep changing the rules on handball and offside. At least once a season, sometimes twice. As they iterate their way through VAR, on the fly, they keep having to refine it. That creates this situation whereby we are in constant flux of rules and we mentally can't keep up. What looked clearly offside to us is in fact onside... today at least, maybe tomorrow it's off again.

If we stuck with the rules we have today, in 20 years time it will be completely normal for us to look at Bamford and say "yeah clearly off look at his shoulder". Just like how we know now what a backpass is... go back and watch some pre-Premier League football and tell me you don't cringe every time the keeper picks up a pass from a defender. We're used to it now. Maybe we need the same now?

Or maybe we need to radically rethink how we go about using VAR to try to make a precise judgement after five minutes of drawing little lines on the pitch in an attempt to rule out a goal that nobody protested.


*ignoring for a moment the inaccuracy of the freeze frame
 

asterdroid

White Hart Pain
It needs better technology.
  1. Sensors in the ball to detect when the touch was made (already exists)
  2. Some type of "spider-cam" running behind the advertising boards, using image recognition to track the last man in each half. Call it the VAL (virtual assistant linesperson)
    1. Camera needs to be 4k-60fps.​
    2. A pair of moving cameras (and accounting for mechanical issues) would be easier to deal with than multiple fixed cameras every 5 metres or so (bandwidth and storage issues).​
    3. Add thermal vision and laser range finding.​
Solved. Patented. Sold.
 
This makes it worse for me, just listen and hear how quickly it's confirmed, like 3 seconds! No way was it replayed in that time, no fucking way.


That said if VAR remains (it's clear by now that it shouldn't) the commentary of the officials should be available to all and live (just as it is in Rugby). With many laws of the game having to be "interpreted" there is NEVER 100% consensus, there will NEVER be black or white, yes or no decisions. This means it's imperative that those watching are "sold" the decision.
 

Johnboy40

Where's the Kaboom?
This makes it worse for me, just listen and hear how quickly it's confirmed, like 3 seconds! No way was it replayed in that time, no fucking way.


That said if VAR remains (it's clear by now that it shouldn't) the commentary of the officials should be available to all and live (just as it is in Rugby). With many laws of the game having to be "interpreted" there is NEVER 100% consensus, there will NEVER be black or white, yes or no decisions. This means it's imperative that those watching are "sold" the decision.
go to any rugby match with a video ref (or TMO), which i understand is only ones that are televised (a concept I utterly disagree with),and you buy the ref link pack. Im astonished that the premier league missed this opportunity to make a couple of quid
 
go to any rugby match with a video ref (or TMO), which i understand is only ones that are televised (a concept I utterly disagree with),and you buy the ref link pack. Im astonished that the premier league missed this opportunity to make a couple of quid
I remember having one in 5 Nations (1999 England vs Wales at Wembley, bastard of a game), that's 21yrs ago!! (Didn't like it mind, not when you're at the game).
 
Top Bottom