VAR
- Thread starter binomial
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Status
I think the rules need to be re-explained because no one seems to understand what they are, are they being made up as they go along?
For me, if a player initiates contact with the defender (Callejon on Robbo perfect example) for me is NOT a foul and therefore CANNOT BE A PENALTY.
Slow the tape down and what'll you fucking see if Robbo pull his left leg clearly away from the man before he falls starts to fall kicking Robbo's standing foot in the process.
How can no mother fucker or his dog see that?
For me, if a player initiates contact with the defender (Callejon on Robbo perfect example) for me is NOT a foul and therefore CANNOT BE A PENALTY.
Slow the tape down and what'll you fucking see if Robbo pull his left leg clearly away from the man before he falls starts to fall kicking Robbo's standing foot in the process.
How can no mother fucker or his dog see that?
Because the mother fuckers are blind baby !!!
Seriously. That is disgusting. I'd rather go out than support a team which had that mentality.
VAR correctly ruled out a goal that would have otherwise stood and given City two points that they shouldn't have gotten...
It's not all bad. Though it hasn't help us directly this season, it has it's place is utilised correctly. Which it hasn't been yet this season. Yesterday really annoyed me...
It's not all bad. Though it hasn't help us directly this season, it has it's place is utilised correctly. Which it hasn't been yet this season. Yesterday really annoyed me...
I seem to recall this...But I can't be bothered to remember teams that didn't make it past the quarter finals.
Well, technically as it was the quarters, one of the teams involved made it past the quarters.
That 2 minutes from sterling scoring and the goal being disallowed was entertainment.
One of them was Spurs. The other is now a footnote.
Its shite, not the tool, but the application of if. The idea that you would spot an error, then take the time to clarify that it was a mistake and then not bother to correct it because it wasnt clear and obvious enough at the time is so stupid that it has to have been done on a bet.
They have enough money to use 100fps cameras. FFS a GoPro can film at 240fps.
Seems like such an easy solution.
Seems like such an easy solution.
This is exactly it. A player going down before contact and conning the ref isn’t a clear and obvious error? We’ve been done twice by that.
That's not the issue, not really, or not the entire issue.
You'd need to get all the tech upgraded to transmit & broadcast images at that frame rate.
That is possible currently, as there's no demand for higher frame rates ( its way more important than higher resolution to your average viewer, but of course it's harder to sell so they don't actually know that) & frame rates aren't uniform anyway (24fps for film, & some adverts, 60fps for US content & much overseas content, which includes a lot of adverts as well as anything filmed there, & 50fps for UK content & our adverts) so the equipment being used has to be made to spec if those higher rates are needed.
Now that's all possible (it's what they'll use in the broadcast centres), but then you'd have to have people to isolate the exact frame in a quick enough time to then get the decision in a reasonable time frame (forgive the pun), & which frame that needs isolating would be key to the decision, so it would need to be someone very quick & technically proficient with the editing software, plus they'd need to able to decide which frame was the relevant one, so they'd need to be a referee, or a partnership between two such individuals, which would inevitably push the time more.
Basically, it's not feasible imo, at all, despite the fact that eventually you'd get a more accurate decision, it'd be a lengthy one, & would still be fallible due to the human aspect of which frame would be relevant & when that phase of play started.
I suspect the answer is much more simple, & involves creating a margin of error greater than the frame rate error margin, & eventually scrapping the phase of play part of the rule.
Which is ironic, cos if you do both of those I reckon a linesman gets the call right at least 99 times out of a 100 anyway, making VAR pointless!
Yeh no problems with it last night.
been a mess on other times, did you think it was ok for the Napoli game too?
VAR ruling out a goal after 25 mins for offside doesn't help any team win a game. We crafted out a good win in a difficult away game scoring 2 beautiful goals along the way. Goals have a tendency to change games. Their was ruled out (correctly) and we scored just after. Assuming that our team would crumble and fall if the decision to allow the offside goal stood can of course be debated, but a team that has lost 1 League game since may 2018 should have the benefit of the doubts. Could we have won anyway? All evidence points in that direction.
VAR is like gps.
If you use GPS, you'll on average not get lost as much, but it isn't faultless. Its chief success is that instead of yelling at each other when you end up with a bad outcome, you get to yell at this faceless technology.
If you use GPS, you'll on average not get lost as much, but it isn't faultless. Its chief success is that instead of yelling at each other when you end up with a bad outcome, you get to yell at this faceless technology.
Fox, it’s not about broadcasting at 100 or 120fps. The current 50fps footage isn’t broadcasted that way either. They’re simply showing the back room staff going through the 50fps footage on your 25-30fps broadcast. They ONLY need to upgrade the cameras and transmission system for the VAR officials’ room. It’s easy.
Just found this:
33 cameras are used in one match, including 8 Super Slow Motion cameras and 4 Ultra Slow Motion cameras with speeds up to 120 frames per second, in addition to normal speed cameras with degrees Ultra HD resolution.
You'd hope the 120fps cameras are the ones in place for offside, the fact there are just 4 suggests they are.
That explains the lengthy delay on offside decisions, as finding the correct frame would be very fucking tricky, as once you've narrowed down the exact second the move happens (which is of course subjective), you've then got to go through 120 frames to get the exact moment that phase of play starts, or the exact moment the ball leaves the foot.
It'd be easy if you could spin around the action, like in a FIFA replay, but of course they can't, so with a side on view that's a bastard to envisage doing.
Yea totally agree with you on this, I also think the answer involves a margin of error being factored into the decision. At least two of the variables are subjective, where the players shoulder/arm starts/ends and like you said which frame the foot first contacts the ball. As far as I'm aware the men sitting at the screens manually decide the frame to freeze on and place the lines themselves.
The higher the frame rate the smaller the margin of error, if the margin is negligible then maybe decisions within that margin should be ignored by VAR.
Nah knew I'd seen it was broadcast footage this is swarbrick talking in the middle of August , he's like the PGMOLs lead on var..
What about tight offside calls and the accuracy of the footage available to the VAR to make judgments. What is the situation here?
All that the VARs can use is the technology that’s there for them.
At this moment the cameras that the broadcasters operate with have 50 frames per second, so that’s all we can use.
So the point of contact with the ball is one of those frames inside the 50 per second.
The technology we’ve got, with 3D lines to judge whether a player is offside, is obviously better than the 2D lines of last season, so we’ve progressed.
What about tight offside calls and the accuracy of the footage available to the VAR to make judgments. What is the situation here?
All that the VARs can use is the technology that’s there for them.
At this moment the cameras that the broadcasters operate with have 50 frames per second, so that’s all we can use.
So the point of contact with the ball is one of those frames inside the 50 per second.
The technology we’ve got, with 3D lines to judge whether a player is offside, is obviously better than the 2D lines of last season, so we’ve progressed.
I think your severely underestimating the costs involved of capturing and broadcasting footage at 50fps let alone 3/4x greater that. It's not something sky or the club's are going to want to absorb.
I think we will require a change in tact or approach to see improvements
Pretty sure the idea that purpose used var cameras were used was partially born from BT saying how they had access to camera angles that var didn't have , for some reason
I think we will require a change in tact or approach to see improvements
Pretty sure the idea that purpose used var cameras were used was partially born from BT saying how they had access to camera angles that var didn't have , for some reason
Looks like you're right, did some more googling.
FIFA using VAR at the world cup was the system I found above with 120fps cameras for offside. The PL uses broadcast cameras for all decisions.
Fuck me. That's an astonishing margin of error that's introduced, even assuming the correct frame (or as close to correct as you can get) has been chosen.
13cm, I'd argue, is more than the human error if you just used a lino & his eyes.
FIFA using VAR at the world cup was the system I found above with 120fps cameras for offside. The PL uses broadcast cameras for all decisions.
Fuck me. That's an astonishing margin of error that's introduced, even assuming the correct frame (or as close to correct as you can get) has been chosen.
13cm, I'd argue, is more than the human error if you just used a lino & his eyes.
- Status