FA Cup 2020/21

[elbows]

I've been making crap VARdy Party jokes since VAR was first introduced so it was nice to have some context for one now.

Unlike many VAR offside decisions, I did think 'ooh he is offside' even before they drew the lines on that one.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

It was offside, just, but I think pre-VAR, the correct call would have been level. Level is ok, benefit of any doubt to the attacking side. That seemed the right way to do it tbh. Offside because you're leaning a tiny bit more than the defender is kind of silly because it means you can't really judge it accurately. It's like attackers need to think like it's the old rule where level is offside.

Do they need some kind of 'umpire's call' area for VAR offside? A wider line, perhaps? Dunno. It's not as if the technology is 100% accurate, which is why those millimetre calls are absurd. Are they confident they are freezing it at the exact moment the ball left the foot of the person making the pass. Does it count from the moment the foot makes contact with the ball or the moment the ball leaves contact with the foot? Did the exact right moment occur between frames?

 

[Serge Forward]

Who is Stephen Pollard? Should we care what he thinks?

Editor of Jewish Chronicle.

 

[elbows]

It was offside, just, but I think pre-VAR, the correct call would have been level. Level is ok, benefit of any doubt to the attacking side. That seemed the right way to do it tbh. Offside because you're leaning a tiny bit more than the defender is kind of silly because it means you can't really judge it accurately. It's like attackers need to think like it's the old rule where level is offside.

Do they need some kind of 'umpire's call' area for VAR offside? A wider line, perhaps? Dunno. It's not as if the technology is 100% accurate, which is why those millimetre calls are absurd. Are they confident they are freezing it at the exact moment the ball left the foot of the person making the pass. Does it count from the moment the foot makes contact with the ball or the moment the ball leaves contact with the foot? Did the exact right moment occur between frames?

Yeah if I were redesigning the rules the thing thats sprung to mind so far is to introduce a little bit of wiggle room, just enough to get rid of all the offside decisions that people have found to be absurd in the VAR era. Whether that simply involves a certain amount of space between lines being allowed, or should involve changes to which body parts count I havent thought about enough, and I wouldnt be sure I'd got it right until we got to see it in action for a while. Or maybe "if you have to draw lines to figure it out, then dont bother, its too close to call, let it slide".

 

[two sheds]

True, but in other areas of the game, particularly whether the ball has crossed the line so whether a goal's been scored, millimetres are critical and nobody has a problem with that.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

True, but in other areas of the game, particularly whether the ball has crossed the line so whether a goal's been scored, millimetres are critical and nobody has a problem with that.

No problem with that. If the tech is good enough to judge down to millimetres, that's totally fine.

The tech for offside isn't that good because you have to choose a frame that equates to the time the ball leaves the foot of the person making the pass. You might not choose the exact right frame (and that will have to be done manually, I assume - in cricket, the moment the ball hits the pad is chosen manually for lbw decisions), or the nearest frame may be a tiny moment away from the exact right time - you see this in cricket with ambiguous run-out/stumping calls. Even with high-speed cameras you can still miss the crucial moment.

I can also understand the frustration of an attacker who thinks he's been careful to stay level being ruled a fraction offside when visually he looked level both to himself and to the official.

 

[elbows]

True, but in other areas of the game, particularly whether the ball has crossed the line so whether a goal's been scored, millimetres are critical and nobody has a problem with that.

Probably those are easier because those lines dont move, and timing isnt a factor in such judgements.

 

[elbows]

or the nearest frame may be a tiny moment away from the exact right time - you see this in cricket with ambiguous run-out/stumping calls. Even with high-speed cameras you can still miss the crucial moment.

Yeah it could still be imperfect with high speed cameras but it would be a heck of a lot better than the current framerate which really is a joke when they try to use it to be this forensic. I think with high speed cameras it could be good enough to not ruffle too many feathers with poor decisions.

Mind you even if they solve all the accuracy issues I think the length of time that some of these decisions take VAR to perform will still wind people up and so the VAR complaints would continue.

 

[oryx]

"And football suffers again" says Mr. QofG's gloomily next to me

Re VAR, my OH was exactly the same.

He says it really works in rugby (I wouldn't know as I don't follow rugby) and we both agree it works well in tennis, so why is it so controversial in football?

Maybe the offside rule. Maybe because it takes away from the passion of the moment.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

Re VAR, my OH was exactly the same.

He says it really works in rugby (I wouldn't know as I don't follow rugby) and we both agree it works well in tennis, so why is it so controversial in football?

Maybe the offside rule. Maybe because it takes away from the passion of the moment.

It works well in stop-start games like rugby, cricket, tennis.

I think they could get it right in football over offside with some adjustments. tbh the real problem in football is handball. That's not so much a problem of VAR as a problem with the fact that arms are attached to bodies. Nobody understands the rule for handball now.

 

[two sheds]

Even if they had a certain amount of space between the lines being allowed you'll still have fractional decisions as to whether someone is in front/behind the line. The main thing I think is consistency. I'd have thought people are either strongly against or tolerant to VAR decisions depending on which team they support

And yes the time taken is a problem, as I say they should learn from rugby where there are virtually no disagreements about VAR's use.

It seems to be done in the background in rugby, only pulled back if there's an incorrect decision.

 

[oryx]

I think some of the dislike of VAR in football in other sports is on an emotional level.

VAR is technically, clinically correct, interpretation of the rules to the nth degree, but takes away from the heat of the moment of a controversial goal being scored.

There was a lot of emotion around a controversial goal - abuse of the referee, players getting lairy, fans and pundits moaning about it and wailing about it for days (or longer ) but that was all seen as a fundamental part of the game.

 

[two sheds]

yes it's often Fukkin VAR where it used to be Fukkin Ref

which is a progression I'd say

Not sure rugby is a stop-start game, League perhaps but Union not so much.

 

[Maggot]

I watched the game again on MOTD. 2 things struck me. 1) How great it was to have fans back. 2) I still don't know who scored the disallowed Chelsea goal. I thought it was an own goal.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

yes it's often Fukkin VAR where it used to be Fukkin Ref

which is a progression I'd say

Not sure rugby is a stop-start game, League perhaps but Union not so much.

Marginal. I did wonder whether to include it in the list. There is a structure even between whistles as they go through phases. Football has far less structure to it. One thing rugby has, though, that makes VAR (or whatever they call it) easier to accept is the idea that advantage is often played, sometimes for ages. So pulling the game back for an earlier incident is much more accepted. Also, there's the violence aspect. I think it's way harder to object to VAR picking up on dangerous play.

 

[two sheds]

Yes - the slow-motion replays for rugby are an addition for me, I'm interested to see exactly what happened and why the ref's decision was taken. I've said that I pay more attention to the replays than I do to normal play.

Having said that I find reffing decisions in rugby a lot harder to follow and I have no fucking idea how rugby refs pick out a decision from underneath a pile of writhing bodies.

 

[The39thStep]

I think some of the dislike of VAR in football in other sports is on an emotional level.

VAR is technically, clinically correct, interpretation of the rules to the nth degree, but takes away from the heat of the moment of a controversial goal being scored.

There was a lot of emotion around a controversial goal - abuse of the referee, players getting lairy, fans and pundits moaning about it and wailing about it for days (or longer ) but that was all seen as a fundamental part of the game.

VAR is subjectively used , its application varies from country to country. Football is about emotion not clinical correctness.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

Other difference in rugby is that the ref is miced up and the decision is made onfield after a consultation process. And it is a lot more stop start than football really. Setting scrums and line outs, etc. There is space between plays that can be used for VAR-style decision-making.

I've not been to a football match since VAR started, but I can see how it would be frustrating live.

 

[two sheds]

Yes the big screens are more common in rugby I think someone said. Must be atrocious without a screen.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

Yes the big screens are more common in rugby I think someone said. Must be atrocious without a screen.

That's the lesson from other sports, imo. The process needs to be totally transparent to everyone if it's going to work, including the fans in the ground. In cricket, the whole process is shown on the big screen as well. It's good - adds rather than subtracting, especially with something like lbw, cos live you frankly have no clue whether it's out or not before you see the replay.

I suspect that there is a degree of football authorities not trusting football fans. Contempt for fans.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

I watched the game again on MOTD. 2 things struck me. 1) How great it was to have fans back. 2) I still don't know who scored the disallowed Chelsea goal. I thought it was an own goal.

Morgan og. I think Morgan coming on was a rather sentimental move. Nearly backfired.

 

[stavros]

Leicester... have Iheanacho in red hot form.

Hmm, I'm glad no one's quoted me on this one.