|
|
Topic Originator: Steviethepar2
Date: Tue 2 Dec 17:35
When most if not all fans want rid off (all of us in lower league greatful we don’t use) VAR
FIFA want to trial expanding and delay games in the World Cup even more to check if corners are… well corners
Thought we had linesmen do that…
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: buffy
Date: Tue 2 Dec 17:57
We dinnae take corners. Kenny Maclean just needs to keep scoring fae the halfway line!
”Buffy’s Buns are the finest in Fife”, J. Spence 2019”
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: Andrew283
Date: Tue 2 Dec 20:01
I like VAR. Should have a dedicated team behind it though, not the mates club referees as it is currently
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: PARrot
Date: Tue 2 Dec 20:23
Quote:
Steviethepar2, Tue 2 Dec 17:35
When most if not all fans want rid off (all of us in lower league greatful we don’t use) VAR
FIFA want to trial expanding and delay games in the World Cup even more to check if corners are… well corners
Thought we had linesmen do that…
That`s a sweeping statement.
You speaking for everyone, are you?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: DBA
Date: Tue 2 Dec 20:38
Quote:
Steviethepar2, Tue 2 Dec 17:35
When most if not all fans want rid off (all of us in lower league greatful we don’t use) VAR
FIFA want to trial expanding and delay games in the World Cup even more to check if corners are… well corners
Thought we had linesmen do that…
My experience is that most fans don`t want rid of VAR, they just want it run properly!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: parsmad68
Date: Tue 2 Dec 21:22
John McGlynn will be delighted.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: Back_oh_the_net
Date: Tue 2 Dec 22:04
Quote:
parsmad68, Tue 2 Dec 21:22
John McGlynn will be delighted.
😂😂😂😂 only if Falkirk have more corners tho
Post Edited (Tue 02 Dec 22:04)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: ParfectXI
Date: Wed 3 Dec 13:18
VAR could be a good addition if used properly, there’s too many rules and grey areas surrounding it though and certain referees just don’t want to use it! It’s there, it’s on the side of the pitch, if there’s any dubiety go and look.
Those that think it’s a bad idea think about this - if we were in the relegation zone and a goal has been given against us to seal our fate, would you rather it go to VAR to check definitively it was good or offside or have a referee make a call with the possibility it’s the wrong call? Personally I’d like to see it checked and chalked off than a referee give it, sending us down only to find out later it was very possibly offside!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: wee eck
Date: Wed 3 Dec 13:34
The problem is so many of the VAR decisions are as controversial, or even more so, than the onfield ones!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: Parsweep
Date: Wed 3 Dec 13:43
Quote:
ParfectXI, Wed 3 Dec 13:18
VAR could be a good addition if used properly, there’s too many rules and grey areas surrounding it though and certain referees just don’t want to use it! It’s there, it’s on the side of the pitch, if there’s any dubiety go and look.
Those that think it’s a bad idea think about this - if we were in the relegation zone and a goal has been given against us to seal our fate, would you rather it go to VAR to check definitively it was good or offside or have a referee make a call with the possibility it’s the wrong call? Personally I’d like to see it checked and chalked off than a referee give it, sending us down only to find out later it was very possibly offside!
Exactly the same argument could be used against VAR . Imagine we`re in a relegation dogfight and we`re awarded a goal that could save us . Would you want VAR to step in and chalk it off and relegate us?
I hate VAR , there seems to be more analysis of that than there is of the actual fitba these days.
Bobvo
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: ParfectXI
Date: Wed 3 Dec 13:56
Parsweep wrote:
> Exactly the same argument could be used against VAR . Imagine
> we`re in a relegation dogfight and we`re awarded a goal that
> could save us . Would you want VAR to step in and chalk it off
> and relegate us?
> I hate VAR , there seems to be more analysis of that than there
> is of the actual fitba these days.
>
>
At least we’d have been relegated legitimately and it would be our fault not something we could forever blame a referee for!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: wee eck
Date: Wed 3 Dec 14:10
ParfectXI, you seem to be assuming VAR is infallible when experience tells us it certainly isn`t.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: parsmad68
Date: Wed 3 Dec 14:34
There is a very easy statistical method to quantify how repeatable a person is within their own decision making, then this can be repeated with multiple cases I.E. referees. This tells how they are repeatable within their own decisions but the analysis can extend to between the referees for the decisions. This then comes up with how reliable a decision is made across a large subgroup of decisions and a large data set of referees.
My guess is that the number of repeatability between and within referees will not be high- because THEY ARE HUMAN and it is highly subjective to the individuals.
I genuinely wonder how nobody has thought to run this analysis with retired referees (recently) to establish what the expected results are. Maybe it could be shocking enough that the cost of VAR and the decisions made are enough to scrap it?
Edit: it is called pairwise analysis and is not complicated.
Post Edited (Wed 03 Dec 14:38)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: MinnesotaAndy
Date: Wed 3 Dec 15:07
From Sky Sports:
"The latest Premier League statistics show before VAR was introduced, 82 per cent of refereeing decisions were correct. Now, since VAR was introduced, 96 per cent of decisions are correct."
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: parsmad68
Date: Wed 3 Dec 15:47
Quote:
MinnesotaAndy, Wed 3 Dec 15:07
From Sky Sports:
"The latest Premier League statistics show before VAR was introduced, 82 per cent of refereeing decisions were correct. Now, since VAR was introduced, 96 per cent of decisions are correct."
That is a nice statistic but I think it is the variability that people are frustrated with rather than the total quantity of correct calls. It needs to lose the air of infallibility that Wee Eck has raised reference to for it to be understood by supporters.
The percentage correct is good but it hasn’t answered the reliability of decision question.
Post Edited (Wed 03 Dec 15:47)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: thebear
Date: Wed 3 Dec 16:06
Vars original concept was to cover critical decisions in the oenalty box, it must stay that way and be speeded up.
I.e offside, handball or foul or if ball crosses the line.
It should be extended to play acting as a result of a foul, three guilty cases and your banned for a game, this is not real time but decided after game.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: red-star-par
Date: Wed 3 Dec 16:32
I don`t like VAR, prefer the human element of the Referee making a quick decision. That`s the sort of thing that makes the game unpredictable, and exciting. VAR checks on goals just suck the life out of a moment.
Football now just seems so joyless compared to football in the 80s and 90s
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: Andrew283
Date: Wed 3 Dec 19:48
Quote:
wee eck, Wed 3 Dec 14:10
ParfectXI, you seem to be assuming VAR is infallible when experience tells us it certainly isn`t.
Humans are, the tech itself generally works perfectly fine. It`s the dimwitted referees using it that causes issues
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: onandupthepars
Date: Thu 4 Dec 01:31
From my research, offside decisions are not subject to the clear and obvious error rule. That`s why we sometimes see someone given offside by no more than the plook on his nose. The clear and obvious rule applies only to subjective decisions made by the ref, and offside is treated as a factual decision which VAR can infallibly determine for or against. The lines they show are not open to interpretation, they are facts. That`s how I understand it.
Now, I don`t like it when a goal is ruled offside because the plook on the nose of the scorer was over the VAR line. I don`t think nose plooks are really involved in the game!
But, I do wish we had VAR when BG yanked oor Talbot back by the collar in thon cup game against Ross Coonty. And though I`m Scottish I`d like it to have disallowed thon Argentinian`s slam dunk in 1986.
Overall, I prefer VAR than no VAR, but there`s room for improvement.
Quote (from the ever reliable google AI🐵):
`an "objective" or "factual" decision is one where technology can provide a definitive answer, such as whether the ball has completely crossed the goal line (Goal-Line Technology) or the exact position of a player for an offside line call using semi-automated technology.`
As far as I can tell, the ref can ignore VAR - even if it suggests someone was offside. The final decision is always made by the ref, not by VAR. Therefore, when someone is offside to a miniscule degree, I`d say the ref would be justified in saying that part of the player`s body which the VAR lines show to be offside was not giving an advantage to the player, the player was substantially onside, and ignore it.
Post Edited (Thu 04 Dec 02:44)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: Bandy
Date: Thu 4 Dec 09:59
Quote:
MinnesotaAndy, Wed 3 Dec 15:07
From Sky Sports:
"The latest Premier League statistics show before VAR was introduced, 82 per cent of refereeing decisions were correct. Now, since VAR was introduced, 96 per cent of decisions are correct."
This is just infuriating and misleading.
Take the Van Dijk `goal` v Man City. Webb outright said `its a subjective decision at the discretion of the referee`...so whatever decision was made would have been `correct`.
You can`t give stats about the `correctness` of decisions unless such subjective calls are excluded entirely - if you don`t do that it`s just stat padding.
And the problem fans have isn`t `correctness`, it`s consistency. That would take a bit more effort to prove, but if there really cared about it, they`d have the data and would be able to report on it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: Dave_1885
Date: Thu 4 Dec 13:47
Quote:
MinnesotaAndy, Wed 3 Dec 15:07
From Sky Sports:
"The latest Premier League statistics show before VAR was introduced, 82 per cent of refereeing decisions were correct. Now, since VAR was introduced, 96 per cent of decisions are correct."
Aye, 96% of decisions are correct as they deem them to be……also, should it not be higher than 96% and closer to 100%?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: Geordiepar
Date: Thu 4 Dec 16:10
VAR has a purpose, but should limit so that each team has one ‘challenge’ each half. If captain challenges a decision then it is looked at by VAR.
The review must be at full speed and time limit on review process.
If the team challenge is upheld, they keep their challenge.
Takes us back to only using VAR for clear and obvious errors.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: ParfectXI
Date: Thu 4 Dec 17:38
Football should take a leaf out of Rugbys book! Rugby have had VAR for many years and it works brilliantly well!
The biggest issue with VAR in the stadium is communication, there is hee-haw, When Rugby puts the replays on the big screen as the referee looks at it everyone is informed and can see it all again making them feel included, at the moment we are watching a referee basically having a phone call conversation in the middle of the pitch, leaving us all asking “What’s happening?”
VAR works, the equipment is virtually infallible, the implementation is the biggest issue exasperated by the assertions from some fans that referees are biased.
|
|
|
|
|
|
