Var .....superthread

[XB52]

On 31/10/2022 at 19:25, avhudtheteeshirt said:

When I saw Shankland's offside goal, you could clearly see the defenders hand outstretched towards goal but the offside line was near his body?

This arm could be used to stop him running through on goal, so I think it's part of the body and is in play???

 

If you can't score a goal with that part of the body it doesn't count

[LarrysRightFoot]

2 minutes ago, XB52 said:

I'm sorry but offside is offside, end of story. Var confirms that either way

How can it if it doesn’t know the exact moment the ball is played forward? 

The authorities can’t even decide what is offside - it’s changed at least twice in the last couple of seasons. 

 

Football is completely different from the likes of tennis - football is subjective and open to interpretation. The only definitive is goal line technology. 

[XB52]

14 minutes ago, OmiyaHearts said:

That Watt foul is clearly a red IMO. The joke was the ref not blowing for a foul and the appeal downgrading.

No way that was a red card, glad it was overturned 

[XB52]

3 minutes ago, LarrysRightFoot said:

How can it if it doesn’t know the exact moment the ball is played forward? 

The authorities can’t even decide what is offside - it’s changed at least twice in the last couple of seasons. 

 

Football is completely different from the likes of tennis - football is subjective and open to interpretation. The only definitive is goal line technology. 

???? The rules that are in place for this season are the rules. Yes, rules change but this season the offside rule is clear. As for the exact moment the ball is kicked, yes they can tell that, it's called technology 

[LarrysRightFoot]

Just now, XB52 said:

???? The rules that are in place for this season are the rules. Yes, rules change but this season the offside rule is clear. As for the exact moment the ball is kicked, yes they can tell that, it's called technology 

No they can’t! Youre telling me that they can or do focus on the moment you can get a hair between the players boot and the ball? Have you ever seen them out that up on the screen, have they ever zoomed in to look at that level of detail? Utter nonsense. 
 

Fine, rules do change but my point is it just goes to show football is subjective and can’t be put into a box like some other sports. 

[Rogue Daddy]

On 31/10/2022 at 15:46, 1874robbo said:

The old firm and their pundit sympathisers moaning about it means I love it!!!.

...also means we're doing something right! 👍👌

[XB52]

8 minutes ago, LarrysRightFoot said:

No they can’t! Youre telling me that they can or do focus on the moment you can get a hair between the players boot and the ball? Have you ever seen them out that up on the screen, have they ever zoomed in to look at that level of detail? Utter nonsense. 
 

Fine, rules do change but my point is it just goes to show football is subjective and can’t be put into a box like some other sports. 

I'm sorry but you are wrong, yes they can tell the exact moment the player kicks the ball. 

[Rogue Daddy]

On 31/10/2022 at 16:52, A_A wehatethehibs said:

 

I actually think the offside aspect of VAR is potentially the best element of it for Scottish football. Basically it boils down to the fact that it should ensure that vastly fewer offside goals are scored. If I had a quid for every time Rangers or Celtic scored a crucial offside goal against teams, and the linesman had his eyes closed… I’d have a few quid. For Scottish football I think it’s going to be one of the best improvements and gap closers to the OF. The wee niggly fouls and lack of bookings advantages they get will still be there, but some of these big decisions, having linesmen in their pocket is at least one advantage that has gone. Now it’s an objective fact you’re either offside or onside. No ifs or buts 

The linesmen is one of the HUGE advantages the OF had, but no longer will! Thankfully! With regards to seeing daylight for offside to be called, you're right - it would be more difficult for the lino - but I do think it would make it easier/quicker for VAR if this was the case. Problem is, only the top leagues have VAR - so it's a definite NO for the time being IMO, also.

[LarrysRightFoot]

8 minutes ago, XB52 said:

I'm sorry but you are wrong, yes they can tell the exact moment the player kicks the ball. 

Well I’ve never ever seen them do that. All you see is a freeze frame when the ball is a yard from the players foot.

 

Please provide evidence. 

[XB52]

6 minutes ago, LarrysRightFoot said:

Well I’ve never ever seen them do that. All you see is a freeze frame when the ball is a yard from the players foot.

 

Please provide evidence. 

😂😂😂😂😂 I'll leave this thread now. Just a wee hint, the earth isn't flat 

[Smoked-Glass]

Flip it. Any part of you is on then you're on.

 

That way there really will have to be daylight between the players.

[inspector]

1 hour ago, XB52 said:

No way that was a red card, glad it was overturned 

Doesn't say much for Beaton's refereeing if he watched that from all angles on VAR

[Saint Jambo]

47 minutes ago, inspector said:

Doesn't say much for Beaton's refereeing if he watched that from all angles on VAR

It seems there were angles that weren't shown to the ref. This is what the United manager said

"The footage that the referee has seen, I agree - it looks like a red card.

"I've also seen other images and other footage that put a fair bit of doubt whether it actually is a red card. I'm not saying VAR got it wrong. I'm just saying I've seen other angles that make it not as clear cut."

 

Presumably VAR looked at all the angles, concluded it was a red and showed the version that they felt was the clearest image of it being a red card offense. Something like deciding only to show the clearest view of a penalty decision.

 

I think this is the first really big error that VAR has made, rather than being an issue with the actual rules (e.g. the handball rules). Failing to show an angle that led to the decision being overturned on appeal is definitely an issue with how VAR was implemented.

[LarrysRightFoot]

4 hours ago, XB52 said:

😂😂😂😂😂 I'll leave this thread now. Just a wee hint, the earth isn't flat 

Love it when people sign off with utter nonsense instead of providing proof for their argument. Goodbye. 

[LarrysRightFoot]

3 hours ago, Saint Jambo said:

It seems there were angles that weren't shown to the ref. This is what the United manager said

"The footage that the referee has seen, I agree - it looks like a red card.

"I've also seen other images and other footage that put a fair bit of doubt whether it actually is a red card. I'm not saying VAR got it wrong. I'm just saying I've seen other angles that make it not as clear cut."

 

Presumably VAR looked at all the angles, concluded it was a red and showed the version that they felt was the clearest image of it being a red card offense. Something like deciding only to show the clearest view of a penalty decision.

 

I think this is the first really big error that VAR has made, rather than being an issue with the actual rules (e.g. the handball rules). Failing to show an angle that led to the decision being overturned on appeal is definitely an issue with how VAR was implemented.

Another major issue with VAR. Juve had a goal chopped off a few weeks ago as they didn’t have/use the camera angle to show the player was onside. 

[XB52]

34 minutes ago, LarrysRightFoot said:

Love it when people sign off with utter nonsense instead of providing proof for their argument. Goodbye. 

I'm sorry but if facts don't count for you then there is nothing I can do. Offside decisions by VAR are absolute, to the centimetre. You obviously don't agree with modern technology so good luck 

[LarrysRightFoot]

24 minutes ago, XB52 said:

I'm sorry but if facts don't count for you then there is nothing I can do. Offside decisions by VAR are absolute, to the centimetre. You obviously don't agree with modern technology so good luck 

There’s absolutely no evidence to show they know the exact moment the ball leaves the attacking players foot - this is essential in making the decision. 
You are not stating facts and have no proof to back up your argument. 

[XB52]

6 minutes ago, LarrysRightFoot said:

There’s absolutely no evidence to show they know the exact moment the ball leaves the attacking players foot - this is essential in making the decision. 
You are not stating facts and have no proof to back up your argument. 

😀😀   sorry, nothing I can think of to try and persuade you that black is black and white is white. 

[Bazzas right boot]

50 minutes ago, LarrysRightFoot said:

There’s absolutely no evidence to show they know the exact moment the ball leaves the attacking players foot - this is essential in making the decision. 
You are not stating facts and have no proof to back up your argument. 

 

 

Tnf, They show it all the time, still frame, reverse,  pause, slow motion.

 

 

 

[stranraer-jambo]

5 hours ago, Saint Jambo said:

It seems there were angles that weren't shown to the ref. This is what the United manager said

"The footage that the referee has seen, I agree - it looks like a red card.

"I've also seen other images and other footage that put a fair bit of doubt whether it actually is a red card. I'm not saying VAR got it wrong. I'm just saying I've seen other angles that make it not as clear cut."

 

Presumably VAR looked at all the angles, concluded it was a red and showed the version that they felt was the clearest image of it being a red card offense. Something like deciding only to show the clearest view of a penalty decision.

 

I think this is the first really big error that VAR has made, rather than being an issue with the actual rules (e.g. the handball rules). Failing to show an angle that led to the decision being overturned on appeal is definitely an issue with how VAR was implemented.

https://www.reddit.com/r/rugbyunion/comments/bek4w3/interview_from_the_french_tv_director_about/

 

This is from Rugby Union where the French TV director admits to only showing angles which are favourable to a particular team....there was another interview, which I can't find, where he admitted only showing footage that favoured France.

 

The TMO and referee can only make a decision on the footage they see, as per Beaton with Watt.

[Saint Jambo]

18 minutes ago, stranraer-jambo said:

https://www.reddit.com/r/rugbyunion/comments/bek4w3/interview_from_the_french_tv_director_about/

 

This is from Rugby Union where the French TV director admits to only showing angles which are favourable to a particular team....there was another interview, which I can't find, where he admitted only showing footage that favoured France.

 

The TMO and referee can only make a decision on the footage they see, as per Beaton with Watt.

 

In Scotland for a game like United vs Well the VAR official has access to 6 cameras and he all of those playing in front of him at all times. While there is a technical operator there, it seems like it should be possible for the VAR official to ask for the camera feeds he wants. Where a game is being shown live and there are up to 12 cameras my understanding is that again all those are playing simultaneously on screens and there are additional officials involved to view them. It shouldn't be like that description of rugby where someone other than the official has editorial control.

 

But it would be helpful for the reputation of VAR if the SFA/SPFL gave a transparent and detailed description of what went wrong in the case of the Watt Red card.

Edited November 2, 2022 by Saint Jambo

[LarrysRightFoot]

1 hour ago, Bazzas right boot said:

 

 

Tnf, They show it all the time, still frame, reverse,  pause, slow motion.

 

 

 

But they can’t tell the moment it leaves the players foot. As soon as you can get a hair between the players boot and the ball - they can’t know or show it. Aye you maybe tell I’m fifa but not in real life. 
 

They take a supposedly scientific approach to the last defender and attacker being in line but a fag packet approach to other aspect of it - when the ball is played. 
 

It’s completely contradictory.

 

Football is not a science and I very much doubt when the rules were drawn up they were ever intended for this level of scrutiny or implementation. 

[LarrysRightFoot]

2 hours ago, XB52 said:

😀😀   sorry, nothing I can think of to try and persuade you that black is black and white is white. 

You’ve not backed up your argument at all.
 

It’s a well known and popular point against VAR I’m making, it’s not something I’ve just came up with just now. 

[Bazzas right boot]

4 minutes ago, LarrysRightFoot said:

But they can’t tell the moment it leaves the players foot. As soon as you can get a hair between the players boot and the ball - they can’t know or show it. Aye you maybe tell I’m fifa but not in real life. 
 

They take a supposedly scientific approach to the last defender and attacker being in line but a fag packet approach to other aspect of it - when the ball is played. 
 

It’s completely contradictory.

 

Football is not a science and I very much doubt when the rules were drawn up they were ever intended for this level of scrutiny or implementation. 

 

The can pause it and use their eyes.

 

It's basically the same as just now,  but with slow motion, psuse, review and technology it's more accurate?

 

Are you saying it's impossible to call any offside, ever?

[LarrysRightFoot]

17 minutes ago, Bazzas right boot said:

 

The can pause it and use their eyes.

 

It's basically the same as just now,  but with slow motion, psuse, review and technology it's more accurate?

 

Are you saying it's impossible to call any offside, ever?

No I’m not saying that. I think it’s pretty impossible to say these ‘armpit’ decisions are correct however. 
 

Also, yes, you can use your eyes but can your eyes see a hairs width distance between a ball and boot - no.
 

My point (and a well known argument) is you can’t apply ‘science’ to one aspect and a ‘that’ll do’ approach to the other aspect. 

[Sooperstar]

On 30/10/2022 at 22:05, kingantti1874 said:

It’s absolutely brilliant. Would we have got that one against Celtic last week?  No chance? Would that Ross County goal have stood today - absolutely.

 

finally there is no excuse for referees to make “honest mistakes”

 

so thankfully. It’s not going in the bin - ever. And thank **** for that 

The flag went up right away for the County goal.

[Bazzas right boot]

46 minutes ago, LarrysRightFoot said:

No I’m not saying that. I think it’s pretty impossible to say these ‘armpit’ decisions are correct however. 
 

Also, yes, you can use your eyes but can your eyes see a hairs width distance between a ball and boot - no.
 

My point (and a well known argument) is you can’t apply ‘science’ to one aspect and a ‘that’ll do’ approach to the other aspect. 

 

Is it tho? computers are pretty good.

Not sure hairs width has every been a concern, that could be a challenge

You can...

 

Anyway, I think for offside it is good.

 

[stranraer-jambo]

1 hour ago, Saint Jambo said:

 

In Scotland for a game like United vs Well the VAR official has access to 6 cameras and he all of those playing in front of him at all times. While there is a technical operator there, it seems like it should be possible for the VAR official to ask for the camera feeds he wants. Where a game is being shown live and there are up to 12 cameras my understanding is that again all those are playing simultaneously on screens and there are additional officials involved to view them. It shouldn't be like that description of rugby where someone other than the official has editorial control.

 

But it would be helpful for the reputation of VAR if the SFA/SPFL gave a transparent and detailed description of what went wrong in the case of the Watt Red card.

That makes sense, though in my cynicism of GFA officials the VAR official may inadvertently 'ignore' some of the screens. 

 

At the end of the day the referee can only make a decision based on the evidence he sees.

 

I agree there should be transparency, particularly when errors have been made on the VAR side.

[Footballfirst]

10 hours ago, XB52 said:

I'm sorry but you are wrong, yes they can tell the exact moment the player kicks the ball. 

The cameras used for TV are 50 frames per second. I think VAR looks at three frames and chooses the one closest to the impact.

 

How far does the ball or defending/attacking players move in that 1/50th of a second? A sprinter running a 10 second 100 metres so will cover 20cm or 8 inches in that time. A defender and attacker moving in opposite directions will easily cover that 20cm, so that is the limit of the accuracy of VAR offsides.

 

You occasionally see the ball as a blur in still images. That is because the ball has moved within that 1/50th of a second.

 

Linesmen are trained to look at such situations. If the attacking player looks less than a metre clear when the attacker and defender are moving in opposite directions then he will probably be onside, such is the time it takes for the brain to process the information.

 

VAR is an improvement for offsides but is not 100% accurate.

Edited November 2, 2022 by Footballfirst

[Bazzas right boot]

11 minutes ago, Footballfirst said:

The cameras used for TV are 50 frames per second. I think VAR looks at three frames and chooses the one closest to the impact.

 

How far does the ball or defending/attacking players move in that 1/50th of a second? A sprinter running a 10 second 100 metres so will cover 20cm or 8 inches in that time. A defender and attacker moving in opposite directions will easily cover that 20cm, so that is the limit of the accuracy of VAR offsides.

 

Linesmen are trained to look at such situations. If the attacking player looks less than a metre clear, then he will probably be onside, such is the time it takes for the brain to process the information.

 

VAR is an improvement for offsides but is not 100% accurate.

 

 

More accurate is better. 

 

I dont think it needs to be perfect.

Positive Change is usually made up of incremental improvements,  imo VAR is one.

I don't think the fact that it's not perfect is a reason not to use it. 

[gnasher75]

9 minutes ago, Footballfirst said:

The cameras used for TV are 50 frames per second. I think VAR looks at three frames and chooses the one closest to the impact.

 

How far does the ball or defending/attacking players move in that 1/50th of a second. A sprinter running a 10 second 100 metres so will cover 20cm or 8 inches in that time. A defender and attacker moving in opposite directions will easily cover that 20cm, so that is the limit of the accuracy of VAR offsides.

 

Linesmen are trained to look at such situations. If the attacking player looks less than a metre clear, then he will probably be onside, such is the time it takes for the brain to process such information.

 

VAR is an improvement for offsides but is not 100% accurate.

 

And for that reason I would favour a rule that says that if the attacker is basically in line with the last defender ie at least 50% of his body is in line, regardless of whose head or toe is fractionally nearer the goal, then the attacking team gets the advantage.

 

VAR has ruined the possibility of being "in line" and when there is an issue about the exact millisecond the pass is played and the resultant lines, I think we are worse off as a result.

[LarrysRightFoot]

45 minutes ago, Bazzas right boot said:

 

Is it tho? computers are pretty good.

Not sure hairs width has every been a concern, that could be a challenge

You can...

 

Anyway, I think for offside it is good.

 

Not it’s never been a concern but neither was a toenail before. 
 

Offside like football itself was never meant to be a science. And VAR will never (in a timely manner) be able to get these hairs breadth offside calls 100% correct. 
 

Refs and linesmen get the vast majority of big call correct - leave it at that. 
 

Goal line technology is required leave the rest as is. 

[Bazzas right boot]

4 minutes ago, LarrysRightFoot said:

Not it’s never been a concern but neither was a toenail before. 
 

Offside like football itself was never meant to be a science. And VAR will never (in a timely manner) be able to get these hairs breadth offside calls 100% correct. 
 

Refs and linesmen get the vast majority of big call correct - leave it at that. 
 

Goal line technology is required leave the rest as is. 

 

Nah, the more correct decisions the better imo.

 

There could be a bit give say an inch, 3 inches but that's a rule change and how VAR is used.

 

Var is a tool to be used, it's not AI. We're maybe not using it correctly just now but VAR is good and it's here to stay and will likely evolve further.

Edited November 2, 2022 by Bazzas right boot

[Footballfirst]

10 minutes ago, gnasher75 said:

 

And for that reason I would favour a rule that says that if the attacker is basically in line with the last defender ie at least 50% of his body is in line, regardless of whose head or toe is fractionally nearer the goal, then the attacking team gets the advantage.

 

VAR has ruined the possibility of being "in line" and when there is an issue about the exact millisecond the pass is played and the resultant lines, I think we are worse off as a result.

All that does is move the line where the judgement is made. You will get just as many decisions where the player is a bawhair ahead more than your 50%. 

 

You have to draw a line somewhere if you want consistency of decision making, otherwise you end up with a surplus of "honest mistakes".

[LarrysRightFoot]

1 hour ago, Bazzas right boot said:

 

Nah, the more correct decisions the better imo.

 

There could be a bit give say an inch, 3 inches but that's a rule change and how VAR is used.

 

Var is a tool to be used, it's not AI. We're maybe not using it correctly just now but VAR is good and it's here to stay and will likely evolve further.

The rules on offside and handball have changed a couple times already seemingly due to the introduction of VAR.
 

Hopefully it isn’t here to stay - there’s quite a big movement against it. 
 

I don’t know how many years old It is now (3?) but there isn’t a week goes by without a number it decisions it’s got wrong being in the sports news. 

 

It’s causing more controversy rather than less. 

[henrysmithsgloves]

Hopefully overturn the favourable treatment the arse cheeks get. Not holding my breath though

[Smoked-Glass]

22 minutes ago, LarrysRightFoot said:

The rules on offside and handball have changed a couple times already seemingly due to the introduction of VAR.
 

Hopefully it isn’t here to stay - there’s quite a big movement against it. 
 

I don’t know how many years old It is now (3?) but there isn’t a week goes by without a number it decisions it’s got wrong being in the sports news. 

 

It’s causing more controversy rather than less. 

It's here to stay.  

[Joey J J Jr Shabadoo]

6 hours ago, LarrysRightFoot said:

The rules on offside and handball have changed a couple times already seemingly due to the introduction of VAR.
 

Hopefully it isn’t here to stay - there’s quite a big movement against it. 
 

I don’t know how many years old It is now (3?) but there isn’t a week goes by without a number it decisions it’s got wrong being in the sports news. 

 

It’s causing more controversy rather than less. 

It only seems to be the English that can't use it correctly.

I hope it's here to stay.

[Bazzas right boot]

7 hours ago, LarrysRightFoot said:

The rules on offside and handball have changed a couple times already seemingly due to the introduction of VAR.
 

Hopefully it isn’t here to stay - there’s quite a big movement against it. 
 

I don’t know how many years old It is now (3?) but there isn’t a week goes by without a number it decisions it’s got wrong being in the sports news. 

 

It’s causing more controversy rather than less. 

 

The rules are causing more controversy and refs are a bit in consistent, especially with handball.

 

However,  VAR is ensuring there are more correct decisions than before. 

 

VAR is fine, However people are still making mistakes and applying the rules inconsistently.

It's 2 separate things.

 

England also seems to be over complicating things.

Edited November 3, 2022 by Bazzas right boot

[TheBigO]

9 hours ago, Footballfirst said:

The cameras used for TV are 50 frames per second. I think VAR looks at three frames and chooses the one closest to the impact.

 

How far does the ball or defending/attacking players move in that 1/50th of a second? A sprinter running a 10 second 100 metres so will cover 20cm or 8 inches in that time. A defender and attacker moving in opposite directions will easily cover that 20cm, so that is the limit of the accuracy of VAR offsides.

 

You occasionally see the ball as a blur in still images. That is because the ball has moved within that 1/50th of a second.

 

Linesmen are trained to look at such situations. If the attacking player looks less than a metre clear when the attacker and defender are moving in opposite directions then he will probably be onside, such is the time it takes for the brain to process the information.

 

VAR is an improvement for offsides but is not 100% accurate.

I guess the thing is, as long as there is consistency in how they choose "ball leaving foot - ie the frame closest" then we have a standard.  I don't think more can be asked.  It will be more accurate than the human eye alone and therefore it's an improvement on accuracy.  I mean, can I linesman tell EXACTLY when the ball leaves the foot AND if a player is 6 inches offside at the same time?  Nope.  Can VAR get it almost exactly correct with a standard consistency?  Yes.

 

It's an improvement.

 

Not a huge advocate for VAR but the arguments against it on here miss the mark.

 

The other one about camera angles is simple misunderstanding of the system.  The refs don't just get to see what Sky or BT or Sportscene show us.  The 6 VAR cams are there at their disposal and the offside one is exact on the line of the defence (plus they access the TV cams if the game is on telly so may have more than double the 6 standard).  Again, perhaps not everything will be perfect, but it's a helping hand is all.  If the cam somehow doesn't show his on-field decision was incorrect, it doesn't get overturned, simple as that.

 

The issue for me isn't any of that.  I get the tech, I get the theory.  I understand why it will make decisions more accurate and it definitely will.  My issue is the sanitisation of the game.  The waiting, the indecision on celebration.  Does VAR remove some passion?  Passion is the single most important thing in football as far as I'm concerned and that's my worry.

 

But then, for years I've moaned that refs in Scotland are incompetent and partisan at best, cheats at worst.  This should at  least allow us to scrutinise their decisions more accurately.  It also gives the ones who feel "influenced" rather than want to cheat, to have a get-out when there's a decision to be made against the OF.  Telly said he was offside.  Telly said it was a penalty etc.  We've seen it already against Celtic.

[LarrysRightFoot]

2 hours ago, Joey J J Jr Shabadoo said:

It only seems to be the English that can't use it correctly.

I hope it's here to stay.

Not sure that correct - we just see the English media. A lot of problems in Italy. 

[LarrysRightFoot]

2 hours ago, Bazzas right boot said:

 

The rules are causing more controversy and refs are a bit in consistent, especially with handball.

 

However,  VAR is ensuring there are more correct decisions than before. 

 

VAR is fine, However people are still making mistakes and applying the rules inconsistently.

It's 2 separate things.

 

England also seems to be over complicating things.

I get the technology isn’t the one making the decisions, therefore it still comes down to a refs interpretation/opinion- same as it always has. 
 

I would disagree it’s getting more things correct - I really don’t think it is and it’s causing more controversy. What it’s doing to celebrating goals is unforgivable. 

[LarrysRightFoot]

1 hour ago, TheBigO said:

I guess the thing is, as long as there is consistency in how they choose "ball leaving foot - ie the frame closest" then we have a standard.  I don't think more can be asked.  It will be more accurate than the human eye alone and therefore it's an improvement on accuracy.  I mean, can I linesman tell EXACTLY when the ball leaves the foot AND if a player is 6 inches offside at the same time?  Nope.  Can VAR get it almost exactly correct with a standard consistency?  Yes.

 

It's an improvement.

 

Not a huge advocate for VAR but the arguments against it on here miss the mark.

 

The other one about camera angles is simple misunderstanding of the system.  The refs don't just get to see what Sky or BT or Sportscene show us.  The 6 VAR cams are there at their disposal and the offside one is exact on the line of the defence (plus they access the TV cams if the game is on telly so may have more than double the 6 standard).  Again, perhaps not everything will be perfect, but it's a helping hand is all.  If the cam somehow doesn't show his on-field decision was incorrect, it doesn't get overturned, simple as that.

 

The issue for me isn't any of that.  I get the tech, I get the theory.  I understand why it will make decisions more accurate and it definitely will.  My issue is the sanitisation of the game.  The waiting, the indecision on celebration.  Does VAR remove some passion?  Passion is the single most important thing in football as far as I'm concerned and that's my worry.

 

But then, for years I've moaned that refs in Scotland are incompetent and partisan at best, cheats at worst.  This should at  least allow us to scrutinise their decisions more accurately.  It also gives the ones who feel "influenced" rather than want to cheat, to have a get-out when there's a decision to be made against the OF.  Telly said he was offside.  Telly said it was a penalty etc.  We've seen it already against Celtic.

Football was never meant to be a science. 

[TheBigO]

15 minutes ago, LarrysRightFoot said:

Football was never meant to be a science. 

Nut, and that's my overall issue with it.

 

People are missing the point of what's wrong.  IMO of course.

 

The issue we do certainly have in Scotland - and no doubt not unique to us, but I'd think a bigger issue than most places - is that we definitely have 2 teams refereed differently to the rest and the general standard of our officials even away from that is dire.  So it's hard not to think this can only help, even though my gut feeling is I don't want it.

 

It's more Americanisation of our sport imo.

 

But then I look down my nose on anyone who has anything other than a pie and a bovril from the pie stand!  (I allow the kebab pies, I'm not a total luddite!)

[The Black Prince]

22 hours ago, XB52 said:

I'm sorry but offside is offside, end of story. Var confirms that either way

Except that it doesn't.

 

Depends on camera angles available at each ground and these can be incredibly deceptive when just a metre off straight.

[Bazzas right boot]

2 hours ago, LarrysRightFoot said:

I get the technology isn’t the one making the decisions, therefore it still comes down to a refs interpretation/opinion- same as it always has. 
 

I would disagree it’s getting more things correct - I really don’t think it is and it’s causing more controversy. What it’s doing to celebrating goals is unforgivable. 

 

It is getting more decisionscorrected, pretty sure that's a fact. High 90 percentile. 

 

It's causing more controversy as imo the rules are a bit unclear in areas therefor there is still a bit inconsistency. 

There is also less incidents therefor more drama when there is an issue.

 

Celebrations are great, the Celtic game was arguably more exciting because of it.

It is different tho, it will take some adapting.

 

If the goal was offside etc then it rightly should be chopped off.

You can't be advocating goals that were against the rules should stand just because it might ruin a Celebration or 2.

Fans just need to adapt to the emotional drama and in a generation or 2 it will be the norm.

 

It's more accurate and it is staying,  football is a competitive sport worth billions, it needs technology and if anything using technology in the sport was over due and held back due to tradition and nostalgia. 

 

 

 

 

[Joey J J Jr Shabadoo]

2 hours ago, LarrysRightFoot said:

Not sure that correct - we just see the English media. A lot of problems in Italy. 

There hasn't really been a lot of problems anywhere, except in England. VAR has been in place for world cups, euro championships, champ league, europa league, mls, France, Spain, Germany, etc without the shitshow England have caused.

[LarrysRightFoot]

1 hour ago, Bazzas right boot said:

 

It is getting more decisionscorrected, pretty sure that's a fact. High 90 percentile. 

 

It's causing more controversy as imo the rules are a bit unclear in areas therefor there is still a bit inconsistency. 

There is also less incidents therefor more drama when there is an issue.

 

Celebrations are great, the Celtic game was arguably more exciting because of it.

It is different tho, it will take some adapting.

 

If the goal was offside etc then it rightly should be chopped off.

You can't be advocating goals that were against the rules should stand just because it might ruin a Celebration or 2.

Fans just need to adapt to the emotional drama and in a generation or 2 it will be the norm.

 

It's more accurate and it is staying,  football is a competitive sport worth billions, it needs technology and if anything using technology in the sport was over due and held back due to tradition and nostalgia. 

 

 

 

 

The highlighted bit in particular is utter nonsense - how can it be fact when most of the decisions re fouls in particular are open to argument? We are already seeing VAR red cards being appealed! 
 

We see inconsistency every week with similar incidents which have different outcomes after being reviewed by VAR. 
 

Re goal celebrations - obviously if something is a clear error it should be chopped off but not for these toenail offsides that they can never ever be sure they are offside. Goals that shouldn’t stand well  the vast majority were picked up pre VAR.

 

Football is a game, not a science. 
 

Another argument (which I can’t be bothered really getting into) is VAR cannot be applied at all levels of the game. 

Edited November 3, 2022 by LarrysRightFoot

[LarrysRightFoot]

1 hour ago, Joey J J Jr Shabadoo said:

There hasn't really been a lot of problems anywhere, except in England. VAR has been in place for world cups, euro championships, champ league, europa league, mls, France, Spain, Germany, etc without the shitshow England have caused.

It causes controversy in European competition every week - the biggest one being how can some games in the same competition use it and others don’t! Utter shambles. 
 

Also I cannot sit hear and profess to be an expert on all European leagues but just one example was Juve having a winner against Salernitana chopped off for offside when it was actually onside but VAR didn’t have the correct camera angle to show it! 

[Bazzas right boot]

12 minutes ago, LarrysRightFoot said:

The highlighted bit in particular is utter nonsense - how can it be fact when most of the decisions re fouls in particular are open to argument? We are already seeing VAR red cards being appealed! 
 

We see inconsistency every week with similar incidents which have different outcomes after being reviewed by VAR. 
 

Re goal celebrations - obviously if something is a clear error it should be chopped off but not for these toenail offsides that they can never ever be sure they are offside. Goals that shouldn’t stand well  the vast majority were picked up pre VAR.

 

Football is a game, not a science. 
 

Another argument (which I can’t be bothered really getting into) is VAR cannot be applied at all levels of the game. 

 

 

Motd mentioned it but I cba checking when it was early on in use.

 

It gets more correct than previously tho, that is obvious and because of that it's a positive change and why it will stay.