VAR v GLT

[Bazzas right boot]

 

Surley VAR makes goal line technology obsolete ? 

 

VAR  can take care of goal line issues and more? 

 

Or, do we need both? 

[JME]

I would say both are needed due to GLT being instantly transmitted to the ref, I believe the GLT watch buzzes or something of the like when the ball has passed the line. Where as VAR is dependent on other referee's examining footage.

Edited July 17, 2018 by JME

[JamboGraham]

90% the same technology but remove GLT and you are back to humans making a judgement call when it is one of the few areas of our game where it is a straight yes or no answer.

[RobNox]

We still need both in my opinion.

 

VAR, as we have seen, is not perfect, it still leaves some decisions open to interpretation, as it still comes down to human decision making.  GLT is black and white, it takes the human element out of the decision.

[gjcc]

GLT is still needed. Otherwise the ref looking at THAT Griffith’s shot on target could possibly have wrongly called it a goal. It was obviously close to crossing the line, So different camera angles could have made it look over the line. Keep the human element out if it. 

[Phil Dunphy]

Goal line technology is fine, VAR is absolutely cancerous to the game of football. 

[Gambo]

GLT does not tell you if it was offside/foul/out if play/knocked in by hand etc.

 

VAR is still down to human interpretation.

 

Do away with both.

[Alex Kintner]

There’s only one way to sort it out...

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[world_3]

Both shite, especially VAR. Let the referee make the calls on the spot and keep the game flowing. Give them time to think with VAR and we'll see more crap decisions like in the World Cup, and in Scotland even more ludicrous decisions than we get already in favour of Celtic and Rangers.

[Ibrahim Tall]

GLT is affordable and practical, VAR currently isn’t outside of the main leagues.

 

One doesn’t really negate the other either, GLT is an instant correct decision, VAR still relies heavily on human interpretations.

[Cruyff Turn]

GLT is great, a brilliant but of kit. VAR is a good thing, it's the refs that are shite, it needs a bit of work though.

 

But no Tosh, I think GLT is still needed as someone said, it gives an instantaneous decision. 

[jambo-in-furness]

 

 

The he problem with VAR is its still down to referees making judgement calls, hopeless in Scotland with the present regime, and the problem with GLT is it only judges if the ball has crossed the line, it does not take into account dubious off side decisions or fouls in the build up to the ball crossing the line, for instance the Shaw incident in the Hearts Hibs 0 - 0 draw when halitosis gob lost his marbles.

 

in Scotland VAR minus the GFA can be the only way to go, finances permitting.

[hughesie27]

What happens when a player blocks the view of the VAR cameras for the ref to see if it was over the line or not?

[Bazzas right boot]

13 minutes ago, Frank1874 said:

There’s only one way to sort it out...

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

What about a BLT? 

[Bazzas right boot]

Just now, hughesie27 said:

What happens when a player blocks the view of the VAR cameras for the ref to see if it was over the line or not?

 

 Get mare cameras. 

[hughesie27]

22 minutes ago, WeeChuck'sHeed said:

 

 Get mare cameras. 

Or just stick with the tried and tested GLT.

[Bazzas right boot]

1 minute ago, hughesie27 said:

Or just stick with the tried and tested GLT.

 

We dinnae have it! 

[Sir Vladimir of Romanov]

49 minutes ago, world_3 said:

Both shite, especially VAR. Let the referee make the calls on the spot and keep the game flowing. Give them time to think with VAR and we'll see more crap decisions like in the World Cup, and in Scotland even more ludicrous decisions than we get already in favour of Celtic and Rangers.

 

VAR got far more right than it did wrong. 

[JamboGraham]

At present around 60% of top league matches in Scotland are covered using four cameras. Three of these are primarily matchplay cameras with only the single behind the goal camera dedicated to replays. In Russia the VAR team had access to 33 operated cameras and 2 locked ‘offside’ cameras. This does not include the additional cameras required for GLT.

 

At present at least one top league ground in Scotland doesn’t even have the building infrastructure to attach the GLT cameras to.

 

VAR and GLT would require incredible levels of investment by the SPFL (i.e. the clubs). Given the current financial situation of Scottish football this does not seem like a priority in any way.

 

[kila]

GLT is instant, VAR is not.

 

They are not the same thing. One uses technology to make an accurate binary decision, the other just shows humans different angles and slow footage for them to make a perceived decision.

 

 

[Tommy Brown]

We already have GLT in the SPFL

 

Is it for any of the uglies? Goal

 

is it against any of the uglies? No Goal

[Tott]

1 hour ago, RobNox said:

We still need both in my opinion.

 

VAR, as we have seen, is not perfect, it still leaves some decisions open to interpretation, as it still comes down to human decision making.  GLT is black and white, it takes the human element out of the decision.

GLT should be at all spl games..

 

 

VAr is an expense we could get by without.

World cup final is a perfect example.

 

Ref doesnt see a penalty,but is  given the nod it maybe a penalty by a squad sitting in a studio surrounded by technology.

Pressure is on the ref as he thinks he has missed something,watches it many times..still undecided,but surely it must be as the head ones in moscow  have hightlighted it.

 

To save face he gives penalty..as he has the back up of the  VAR mob.

Easy option,there fault if it wasnt no mine.

 

in the meantime  none up of  them picked up on Griezmann  diving.

[Sepp's Bladder]

2 hours ago, WeeChuck'sHeed said:

 

Surley VAR makes goal line technology obsolete ? 

 

VAR  can take care of goal line issues and more? 

 

Or, do we need both? 

Has sliced bread made the bread knife obsolete?

 

As others have said, both have their purpose.

 

I reckon we should do away with it all and employ female refs. God knows they're never wrong!

 

 

[Erik]

7 hours ago, JamboGraham said:

At present around 60% of top league matches in Scotland are covered using four cameras. Three of these are primarily matchplay cameras with only the single behind the goal camera dedicated to replays. In Russia the VAR team had access to 33 operated cameras and 2 locked ‘offside’ cameras. This does not include the additional cameras required for GLT.

 

At present at least one top league ground in Scotland doesn’t even have the building infrastructure to attach the GLT cameras to.

 

VAR and GLT would require incredible levels of investment by the SPFL (i.e. the clubs). Given the current financial situation of Scottish football this does not seem like a priority in any way.

 

 

Good post.

 

We're a long way off being able to consider either technology in the game up here.

 

The coverage up here is rank rotten even just for watching highlights / replays of goals etc - no danger can we fairly implement a crucial system such at this using the cameras we have at the moment.

 

[AlphonseCapone]

8 hours ago, Phil Dunphy said:

Goal line technology is fine, VAR is absolutely cancerous to the game of football. 

 

Bit dramatic

[I.T.K]

8 hours ago, Gambo said:

GLT does not tell you if it was offside/foul/out if play/knocked in by hand etc.

 

VAR is still down to human interpretation.

 

Do away with both.

 

LOL I new you would write this. :-P

 

GLT works well IMO. Was never designed to check for off side and fouls etc. 

 

VAR still needs work. There will always a be a gray zone in some instances. But for most of the time it works. 

[John Findlay]

8 hours ago, Phil Dunphy said:

Goal line technology is fine, VAR is absolutely cancerous to the game of football. 

I'm presently in this camp.

[Gambo]

15 minutes ago, I.T.K said:

 

LOL I new you would write this. :-P

 

GLT works well IMO. Was never designed to check for off side and fouls etc. 

 

VAR still needs work. There will always a be a gray zone in some instances. But for most of the time it works. 

Most of the time the referees get it right.

[The Internet]

Goal line technology is brilliant tbh. Instant decision, doesn't interrupt the game and correct 100% of the time on the most important calls. Var will never provide that. Getting rid of goal line technology for var would be the biggest backwards step ever. 

[Skacelsid]

Keep both for me, prefer it as it is, controversy is part of the game, talking points, something to moan about. Making the game more sterile (and longer) will not make it any better to watch. Really enjoyed the world cup and technology did not add to that experience for me, in fact it bores me. Doubtful it will make economic sense for the foreseeable future up here for a while, hopefully there are better things to spend on to improve our game.

[S Form]

Goal line technology is a complete and utter waste of money. The number of times it’s needed are so few and far between that it could be sitting unused for years at any given ground. Plus, not all hairline decisions are important. There’s every chance that when it does come into play it’s the difference between a 2-0 win and a 3-0 result. There are lots of better things for football to spend it’s money on.

[Marvin]

9 hours ago, WeeChuck'sHeed said:

 

Surley VAR makes goal line technology obsolete ? 

 

VAR  can take care of goal line issues and more? 

 

Or, do we need both? 

 

Definitely both needed. My concern is when it's eventually introduced into SPL games, who makes the final decision? 

[sandyk]

VAR can piss off

 

GLT can stay

 

 

 

[Saint Jambo]

7 hours ago, Tott said:

in the meantime  none up of  them picked up on Griezmann  diving.

 

VAR didn't miss Griezmann diving. The competirion rules set out a limited set of circumstances in which VAR could be used. It didn't include a player diving outside the box. If you want to pick up that instance you need to be calling for more not less VAR as the ref on his own got it wrong.

[gashauskis9]

World Cup final proves that VAR in isolation still gives refs an opportunity to **** it up.  GLT is a must.

[Lord Beni of Gorgie]

11 hours ago, RobNox said:

We still need both in my opinion.

 

VAR, as we have seen, is not perfect, it still leaves some decisions open to interpretation, as it still comes down to human decision making.  GLT is black and white, it takes the human element out of the decision.

[@VladMagic]

VAR should be changed so the referee doesn't make the call on the video playback. It should be 3 (who all have to agree) on the decision.

 

Ref watched it back in slow motion (as seen with the French penalty) and made the wrong call. The VAR team (which I am suggesting) should make these decisions and radio to the ref. 

 

Would also stop players confronting the ref when they thick he's made a bad call. Would also eliminate diving as players would know VAR is watching them back and spotting dives.

 

EDIT!!

 

Forgot to add that the VAR I am talking about runs the full 90 mins. A bit like Big Brother is watching you. Not as it is just now when you get a VAR incident is being reviewed.

Edited July 18, 2018 by VladMagic

[Phil Dunphy]

If VAR is to work, the way it’s used should be changed completely. He should only use it if he didn’t have a clear sight of the offence.

 

“I’m thinking of sending him off because I think I saw him use an elbow, is that the case?”

”Yes, he throws an elbow into the players face.”

”Ok, red card it is.”

 

None of this every angle shite. 

[Mikey1874]

12 hours ago, WeeChuck'sHeed said:

 

Surley VAR makes goal line technology obsolete ? 

 

VAR  can take care of goal line issues and more? 

 

Or, do we need both? 

 

11 hours ago, WeeChuck'sHeed said:

 

We dinnae have it! 

 

So to be clear we're talking about games from tv World Cup, EPL etc (though no VAR yet in EPL.

 

Scotland can't afford GLT. SPFL said this after the Olly Shaw incident v Hibs. VAR maybe but costs as well. 

[Perth to Paisley]

SPFL has a decision made for it  that it will not be adopting VAR or GLT but continuing to use WB.

 

VAR has shown to be useful in highlighting 'clear and obvious mistakes.

 

GLT has been perfect for clearing up matters of fact ... over the line or not.

 

However WB gives the required result all of the time. 

You and I know WB by its full name of Weedgie Bias.

 

[JamboGraham]

Interesting that GLT seems to be gaining more traction that VAR on this debate. Research in the Netherlands found that GLT would be needed around once every four years per ground. That is before considering the importance of the goal (i.e. did it change the overall match result). I think GLT is over stated due to the fact that the EPL play the graphic every time the ball is near to the line. In each of these cases GLT hasn't actually done anything and the correct decision was made without GLT. In the three Hearts related cases that come to mind (Shaw last year, Griffiths in 2013 and Elliott v Celtic 2012) GLT wasn't actually required to establish a goal in any of these incidents. All three would have been spotted by the most basic of TMO system (i.e. someone watching the television coverage).

 

Scotland could implement a reasonably sophisticated TMO system based on our current broadcast technology as each top league game has a minimum of 4 cameras. The Hawkeye SMART system (used by Pro14 rugby) allows all 4 of these angles to sync up and show them relative to each other on a split screen. This is cheaper but not free, the Hawkeye SMART system would need to be bought and each match would require an additional official and technician to support the system. The system can easily be used to support the referee with questions such as "any reason I should not award the goal", "any reason why I should not give a red card", etc. If the TMO is not clear then the decision goes back to original judgement of the referee. The TMO could also advise where a clear and obvious miss or error has been made "Shaw shot over the line, advise awarding a goal", "Brown has just punched someone off the ball, advise red card".

 

 

[Perth to Paisley]

Would any of these spotted Shaw was actually offside.

[Bazzas right boot]

8 minutes ago, JamboGraham said:

Interesting that GLT seems to be gaining more traction that VAR on this debate. Research in the Netherlands found that GLT would be needed around once every four years per ground. That is before considering the importance of the goal (i.e. did it change the overall match result). I think GLT is over stated due to the fact that the EPL play the graphic every time the ball is near to the line. In each of these cases GLT hasn't actually done anything and the correct decision was made without GLT. In the three Hearts related cases that come to mind (Shaw last year, Griffiths in 2013 and Elliott v Celtic 2012) GLT wasn't actually required to establish a goal in any of these incidents. All three would have been spotted by the most basic of TMO system (i.e. someone watching the television coverage).

 

Scotland could implement a reasonably sophisticated TMO system based on our current broadcast technology as each top league game has a minimum of 4 cameras. The Hawkeye SMART system (used by Pro14 rugby) allows all 4 of these angles to sync up and show them relative to each other on a split screen. This is cheaper but not free, the Hawkeye SMART system would need to be bought and each match would require an additional official and technician to support the system. The system can easily be used to support the referee with questions such as "any reason I should not award the goal", "any reason why I should not give a red card", etc. If the TMO is not clear then the decision goes back to original judgement of the referee. The TMO could also advise where a clear and obvious miss or error has been made "Shaw shot over the line, advise awarding a goal", "Brown has just punched someone off the ball, advise red card".

 

 

 

 

I tend to agree. 

 

GLT is 100% but only on one matter. 

 

VAR covers allot more, tackles. Fouls, goals, offsides etc. 

Much more valuable, but by nature mistakes will still happen. 

 

Given the price and the impact on a game to game basis, VAR offers more and is better value for money, by quite a distance. 

 

Plus GLT would have ****ed us twice v hibs?, although I suspect VAR might have caught that as well.... 

[Bazzas right boot]

2 minutes ago, Perth to Paisley said:

Would any of these spotted Shaw was actually offside.

 

VAR would have. 

 

Would have allowed thier goal in the 2-0 as well tho. 

 

Would also have disallowed Celtics goal in the 2-1 defeat under robbie, but would have sent Naismith off last year. 

 

VAR is like having the review panel that happens with incidents on appeal or because they were missed, at the time. 

They also still get things wrong. 

[JamboGraham]

5 minutes ago, Perth to Paisley said:

Would any of these spotted Shaw was actually offside.

 

In theory yes...under a TMO scenario. Step 1 - TMO to Ref, advises ball over line. Step 2 - Ref to TMO, any reason I should not award a goal. Step 3 - TMO to Ref, yes striker in an offside position.

 

GLT alone would have awarded a goal.

VAR I am not sure as currently the system is used alongside GLT. In theory VAR would have spotted both the ball over the line and the offside.

[lauriesrank]

Gt rid of offside, how's that for a start, Sweden had a shocking decision against them in their game against englandland where their guy was gonna waltz past the last defender and be in on goal.  THat was of course overlooked.

 

Anyway, VAR is a work in progress and will benefit fitbaw, GLT is instantaneous, ergo, excellent and the refs in scotland are cheats.

[Mikey1874]

56 minutes ago, Perth to Paisley said:

Would any of these spotted Shaw was actually offside.

 

Good point

 

And VAR didn't go back to show Griezmann had dived to win  free kick for the first goal. 

[beerbandit]

6 hours ago, John Findlay said:

I'm presently in this camp.

Me too