comment by Bãles left boot (U22081)
posted 17 minutes ago
Welshpoolfan
1. I didn't make that argument. Can't be bothered. But the context is different, the rules of the game have changed for a start. So it isn't a before and after comparison. No empirical evidence needed for a fact.
2. You say "It was brought in to improve the accuracy of decisions (and thus the fairness and consistency in games) and it has been a success on this measure." but football only exists in the sense we know it because fans pay money to watch. They've only brought it in to satisfy what they think the fans want. Not some abstract desire to have all decisions in the game corrected.
You can blame fans for not understanding etc all you like, but the fact is most people don't think the game is better with VAR.
Like mansince52 points out, it's only right that people should expect something better out of all the changes. Replays, delays to the game (the study you linked says 62 seconds median decision time) rule changes.. for a handful more correct decisions over a season? The vast majority of which people didn't have a problem with in the first place.
Sorry to get all politics but this whole thing reminds me of Brexit. Sure at the bottom line there might be a benefit. But for all of the disruption and hassle it should be really feckin obvious. It should be really easy to convince most people how good your great idea is, no?
Or they're just all dumb and you're right.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Did you miss the last 20 years of football where every incorrect decisions was dissected by the media and raged against by fans? Issues like the Henry handball and the Lampard ghost goal? To say that people never had a problem with incorrect decisions pre-VAR seems to be an attempt to re-write history. Even since VAR, when a cup game without VAR has an incorrect decision people have moaned that VAR wasn't available.
Do you think fans are not unhappy when clearly incorrect decisions affect their team? Many Spurs fans have very fond memories of the semi final game against Ajax - but without VAR correcting an incorrect decision they wouldn't have even got to have that evening.
You will note that the median reviews is 62 seconds but that one only occurs on average just under every 3 games. So it works about to about 25 seconds on average per game is spent with VAR reviews - about the same length of time it takes a gk to take one goal kick. 35 minutes is lost in every game when the ball is out of play, yet it is the one minute that is spent ensuring that a team isn't unfairly cheated that is the issue?
What else has changed? There have always been replays (in fact part of the reason fans were calling for VAR was because they could see instantly on a replay that the ref had made a mistake). There have always been rule changes, and I've not seen any evidence that a rule has changed explicitly because of VAR.
Its weird that you compare VAR proponents to Brexiters when Brexiters are the ones longing for a bygone time when things were simpler and people were (supposedly) happier. Seems much more akin to the anti-VAR sentiment.
It would be interesting to see if there's a correlation between football fans' stance on Brexit and VAR!
For what it's worth, I'm a staunch Remainer and I also think on balance VAR is a net benefit to the game, albeit one that needs to be substantially refined. I also think this isn't a black and white issue, and there are good arguments both for and against. The strongest argument against is the fact that it can rob us of the explosion of joy when a goal is scored. That is a real downside. However, there always were times in the pre-VAR days when we'd erupt, only to see the flag go up late, or the referee consulting with the linesman on whether there was an infringement. (The cheer at one end followed by jeers at the other is a classic trope of the in-stadium experience.)
On the other hand, I do feel that getting decisions right is pretty important. Ultimately, I hate the feeling of being denied a win or a goal via an officiating mistake more than I hate waiting a few moments to check. These delays are not going to haunt me in the same way as sickening disappointments, inflamed by injustice, like being knocked out by Mourinho's Porto on the back of a terrible offside call. This is purely subjective and I totally accept that if the majority of fans really feel differently (as evidenced by voting with their feet, not moaning on forums and in surveys - because moaning on forums is what we as fans do) then the world of football will turn its back on VAR.
For me, it just seems natural that if technology exists to identify the mistakes of the human eye - and to inform fans of them seconds after they happen - then it's a good thing if that technology facilitates more accurate officiation. For me it's important that the scoreline reflects the number of goals that each side has legally scored. Most sports that are watched by millions have followed the same logic, including the quintessentially traditional sport of cricket, which prospered for longer than football before bowing to technology.
So my meaningless vote would be in favour of keeping VAR, improving its efficacy and the speed with which it delivers verdicts, and (as in tennis, cricket and other sports) becoming more interactive so the fans can engage with the decision making as it is happening.
Its weird that you compare VAR proponents to Brexiters when Brexiters are the ones longing for a bygone time when things were simpler and people were (supposedly) happier. Seems much more akin to the anti-VAR sentiment.
---
Sorry, but that just shows you don't understand the point I'm making. I made it pretty clear, and I don't want to have to repeat myself.
RE: the obvious decisions corrected, I've also said previously on this thread that I would be ok with VAR operating in that context. Clear and obvious errors was the initial remit, after all. But it's being applied consistently to marginal offsides, which by definition are neither clear nor obvious. The margin for error in the frame rate and timing of the player making the pass makes it a farce. The Dutch FA at least have the sense to recognize this.
Funnily enough I only commented after an Arsenal fan voiced concern that Peter Walton pointed out what the actual use case of VAR is supposed to be instead of this perverse pursuit of 'correct decisions in every aspect of the game.
comment by Red Russian (U4715)
posted 1 hour, 10 minutes ago
It would be interesting to see if there's a correlation between football fans' stance on Brexit and VAR!
For what it's worth, I'm a staunch Remainer and I also think on balance VAR is a net benefit to the game, albeit one that needs to be substantially refined. I also think this isn't a black and white issue, and there are good arguments both for and against. The strongest argument against is the fact that it can rob us of the explosion of joy when a goal is scored. That is a real downside. However, there always were times in the pre-VAR days when we'd erupt, only to see the flag go up late, or the referee consulting with the linesman on whether there was an infringement. (The cheer at one end followed by jeers at the other is a classic trope of the in-stadium experience.)
On the other hand, I do feel that getting decisions right is pretty important. Ultimately, I hate the feeling of being denied a win or a goal via an officiating mistake more than I hate waiting a few moments to check. These delays are not going to haunt me in the same way as sickening disappointments, inflamed by injustice, like being knocked out by Mourinho's Porto on the back of a terrible offside call. This is purely subjective and I totally accept that if the majority of fans really feel differently (as evidenced by voting with their feet, not moaning on forums and in surveys - because moaning on forums is what we as fans do) then the world of football will turn its back on VAR.
For me, it just seems natural that if technology exists to identify the mistakes of the human eye - and to inform fans of them seconds after they happen - then it's a good thing if that technology facilitates more accurate officiation. For me it's important that the scoreline reflects the number of goals that each side has legally scored. Most sports that are watched by millions have followed the same logic, including the quintessentially traditional sport of cricket, which prospered for longer than football before bowing to technology.
So my meaningless vote would be in favour of keeping VAR, improving its efficacy and the speed with which it delivers verdicts, and (as in tennis, cricket and other sports) becoming more interactive so the fans can engage with the decision making as it is happening.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I agree with this entirely
I voted remain and think VAR has a place in the game.
comment by Bãles left boot (U22081)
posted 1 hour, 7 minutes ago
Its weird that you compare VAR proponents to Brexiters when Brexiters are the ones longing for a bygone time when things were simpler and people were (supposedly) happier. Seems much more akin to the anti-VAR sentiment.
---
Sorry, but that just shows you don't understand the point I'm making. I made it pretty clear, and I don't want to have to repeat myself.
RE: the obvious decisions corrected, I've also said previously on this thread that I would be ok with VAR operating in that context. Clear and obvious errors was the initial remit, after all. But it's being applied consistently to marginal offsides, which by definition are neither clear nor obvious. The margin for error in the frame rate and timing of the player making the pass makes it a farce. The Dutch FA at least have the sense to recognize this.
Funnily enough I only commented after an Arsenal fan voiced concern that Peter Walton pointed out what the actual use case of VAR is supposed to be instead of this perverse pursuit of 'correct decisions in every aspect of the game.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
No, the remit was to improve officiating. Clear and obvious was a directive to show how the remit would be achieved.
"Clear and obvious" has been defined by referees to mean a matter of fact (as opposed to a matter of opinion). This was to allow referees to keep their subjective calls on penalty and red card incidents, but be corrected if their initial decision was shown based on incorrect facts (eg no penalty because the defender won the ball, actually the replay shows the defender didn't win the ball).
So if a replay shows a player was offside and it wasn't given then a clear and obvious error (ie an error of fact) has occurred by definition. The fact that there is hypothetical margin for error is not really an issue because that error can occur both ways and so it is entirely possible that the player was actually even more offside than the image shows. This can, and should be improved, but it is already much more accurate than the previous system which not only got these tight calls wrong more frequently, but got major calls wrong too.
As I said earlier - A lot of calls against VAR are because it isn't perfect (despite being an improvement over the previous system) but to dismiss an improvement because it hasn't yet reached perfection is to remove all possible advancement.
OK we're getting into the nitty gritty here. But IFAB said when VAR was introduced that it should only be used for clear and obvious errors, not marginal decisions. So I think it's fair to say it's part of the remit at the very least.
The margin of error in referring to isn't hypothetical.
Questioning what's happening is the only way to measure progress. You don't keep doing things in new ways because it must be better. If something is proven to be advantageous you adopt it. If it's found to be worse you revert back or try a different path to achieve your goals.
The goals of football as an organization is to make money.
The desire of fans is to enjoy the game.
It's pretty simple. Anything that doesn't advance either purpose can be said to be extraneous. I'm sure the whole noise over VAR and the replays probably appeals to TV audiences, especially in North America. But I am surprised how many fans the idea has on a forum like this.
comment by Bãles left boot (U22081)
posted 2 hours, 33 minutes ago
OK we're getting into the nitty gritty here. But IFAB said when VAR was introduced that it should only be used for clear and obvious errors, not marginal decisions. So I think it's fair to say it's part of the remit at the very least.
The margin of error in referring to isn't hypothetical.
Questioning what's happening is the only way to measure progress. You don't keep doing things in new ways because it must be better. If something is proven to be advantageous you adopt it. If it's found to be worse you revert back or try a different path to achieve your goals.
The goals of football as an organization is to make money.
The desire of fans is to enjoy the game.
It's pretty simple. Anything that doesn't advance either purpose can be said to be extraneous. I'm sure the whole noise over VAR and the replays probably appeals to TV audiences, especially in North America. But I am surprised how many fans the idea has on a forum like this.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yes and for the goal of improving referee decisions, VAR has proven to be advantageous. It has made decisions more accurate. There are other goals it will be looking to improve on like the time taken etc, but it is proving successful in the primary goal.
Yes the desire of fans is to enjoy the game. How many fans do you think enjoy it when their team lose, or is knocked out of a tournament, or relegated, due to a completely incorrect decision? Also you later state that you think VAR is popular with TV audiences, which make up the vast majority of fans.
The margin of error isn't hypothetical, but where a specific offside decision falls on that margin is because it isnt provable. In extremely tight calls there is a small chance that the player wasn't offside at the precise moment the ball was played. There is also a chance that he was more offside because he could have been on the other end of the margin. We cannot prove it so it is hypothetical. What can be shown is that in the closest image we have to the moment the ball was played, he was offside and so we give the offside. It is purely a more accurate version of a linesman, that is only used when a goal is scored to ensure teams aren't unfairly conceding.
I'm a fan because it makes football a better sport. It makes it more likely that the game will be decided by the players involved, rather than incorrect decisions by a referee. It therefore means it is more likely that the game will decided on sporting merit and luck.
Dang it, I've missed the obvious. Sorry folks.
They'll sell the VAR sponsorship. They love doing that, especially in the States it's normal to have 'half time sponsored by Chrysler.'. This gives them a prime time slot where viewers can't look away.
See here, one analyst described VAR as "the biggest sponsorship asset that football has ever created".
https://www.ft.com/content/700dfa86-70d2-11e9-bbfb-5c68069fbd15
I'm a fan because it makes football a better sport. It makes it more likely that the game will be decided by the players involved, rather than incorrect decisions by a referee. It therefore means it is more likely that the game will decided on sporting merit and luck.
---
OK best we leave it there. I respect your opinion but I feel differently, as you know.
My love of football was never tarnished by the occasional shocking decision. I took mistakes as a fact of life and a part of the game. I find the pausing and scrutinizing make the games less enjoyable to watch on a regular basis.
One last thing I'll say, is that it's not always worth pursuing being 'right' above all else. Women taught me that
Sign in if you want to comment
VAR should be independent.
Page 4 of 4
posted on 9/2/21
comment by Bãles left boot (U22081)
posted 17 minutes ago
Welshpoolfan
1. I didn't make that argument. Can't be bothered. But the context is different, the rules of the game have changed for a start. So it isn't a before and after comparison. No empirical evidence needed for a fact.
2. You say "It was brought in to improve the accuracy of decisions (and thus the fairness and consistency in games) and it has been a success on this measure." but football only exists in the sense we know it because fans pay money to watch. They've only brought it in to satisfy what they think the fans want. Not some abstract desire to have all decisions in the game corrected.
You can blame fans for not understanding etc all you like, but the fact is most people don't think the game is better with VAR.
Like mansince52 points out, it's only right that people should expect something better out of all the changes. Replays, delays to the game (the study you linked says 62 seconds median decision time) rule changes.. for a handful more correct decisions over a season? The vast majority of which people didn't have a problem with in the first place.
Sorry to get all politics but this whole thing reminds me of Brexit. Sure at the bottom line there might be a benefit. But for all of the disruption and hassle it should be really feckin obvious. It should be really easy to convince most people how good your great idea is, no?
Or they're just all dumb and you're right.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Did you miss the last 20 years of football where every incorrect decisions was dissected by the media and raged against by fans? Issues like the Henry handball and the Lampard ghost goal? To say that people never had a problem with incorrect decisions pre-VAR seems to be an attempt to re-write history. Even since VAR, when a cup game without VAR has an incorrect decision people have moaned that VAR wasn't available.
Do you think fans are not unhappy when clearly incorrect decisions affect their team? Many Spurs fans have very fond memories of the semi final game against Ajax - but without VAR correcting an incorrect decision they wouldn't have even got to have that evening.
You will note that the median reviews is 62 seconds but that one only occurs on average just under every 3 games. So it works about to about 25 seconds on average per game is spent with VAR reviews - about the same length of time it takes a gk to take one goal kick. 35 minutes is lost in every game when the ball is out of play, yet it is the one minute that is spent ensuring that a team isn't unfairly cheated that is the issue?
What else has changed? There have always been replays (in fact part of the reason fans were calling for VAR was because they could see instantly on a replay that the ref had made a mistake). There have always been rule changes, and I've not seen any evidence that a rule has changed explicitly because of VAR.
Its weird that you compare VAR proponents to Brexiters when Brexiters are the ones longing for a bygone time when things were simpler and people were (supposedly) happier. Seems much more akin to the anti-VAR sentiment.
posted on 9/2/21
It would be interesting to see if there's a correlation between football fans' stance on Brexit and VAR!
For what it's worth, I'm a staunch Remainer and I also think on balance VAR is a net benefit to the game, albeit one that needs to be substantially refined. I also think this isn't a black and white issue, and there are good arguments both for and against. The strongest argument against is the fact that it can rob us of the explosion of joy when a goal is scored. That is a real downside. However, there always were times in the pre-VAR days when we'd erupt, only to see the flag go up late, or the referee consulting with the linesman on whether there was an infringement. (The cheer at one end followed by jeers at the other is a classic trope of the in-stadium experience.)
On the other hand, I do feel that getting decisions right is pretty important. Ultimately, I hate the feeling of being denied a win or a goal via an officiating mistake more than I hate waiting a few moments to check. These delays are not going to haunt me in the same way as sickening disappointments, inflamed by injustice, like being knocked out by Mourinho's Porto on the back of a terrible offside call. This is purely subjective and I totally accept that if the majority of fans really feel differently (as evidenced by voting with their feet, not moaning on forums and in surveys - because moaning on forums is what we as fans do) then the world of football will turn its back on VAR.
For me, it just seems natural that if technology exists to identify the mistakes of the human eye - and to inform fans of them seconds after they happen - then it's a good thing if that technology facilitates more accurate officiation. For me it's important that the scoreline reflects the number of goals that each side has legally scored. Most sports that are watched by millions have followed the same logic, including the quintessentially traditional sport of cricket, which prospered for longer than football before bowing to technology.
So my meaningless vote would be in favour of keeping VAR, improving its efficacy and the speed with which it delivers verdicts, and (as in tennis, cricket and other sports) becoming more interactive so the fans can engage with the decision making as it is happening.
posted on 9/2/21
Its weird that you compare VAR proponents to Brexiters when Brexiters are the ones longing for a bygone time when things were simpler and people were (supposedly) happier. Seems much more akin to the anti-VAR sentiment.
---
Sorry, but that just shows you don't understand the point I'm making. I made it pretty clear, and I don't want to have to repeat myself.
RE: the obvious decisions corrected, I've also said previously on this thread that I would be ok with VAR operating in that context. Clear and obvious errors was the initial remit, after all. But it's being applied consistently to marginal offsides, which by definition are neither clear nor obvious. The margin for error in the frame rate and timing of the player making the pass makes it a farce. The Dutch FA at least have the sense to recognize this.
Funnily enough I only commented after an Arsenal fan voiced concern that Peter Walton pointed out what the actual use case of VAR is supposed to be instead of this perverse pursuit of 'correct decisions in every aspect of the game.
posted on 9/2/21
comment by Red Russian (U4715)
posted 1 hour, 10 minutes ago
It would be interesting to see if there's a correlation between football fans' stance on Brexit and VAR!
For what it's worth, I'm a staunch Remainer and I also think on balance VAR is a net benefit to the game, albeit one that needs to be substantially refined. I also think this isn't a black and white issue, and there are good arguments both for and against. The strongest argument against is the fact that it can rob us of the explosion of joy when a goal is scored. That is a real downside. However, there always were times in the pre-VAR days when we'd erupt, only to see the flag go up late, or the referee consulting with the linesman on whether there was an infringement. (The cheer at one end followed by jeers at the other is a classic trope of the in-stadium experience.)
On the other hand, I do feel that getting decisions right is pretty important. Ultimately, I hate the feeling of being denied a win or a goal via an officiating mistake more than I hate waiting a few moments to check. These delays are not going to haunt me in the same way as sickening disappointments, inflamed by injustice, like being knocked out by Mourinho's Porto on the back of a terrible offside call. This is purely subjective and I totally accept that if the majority of fans really feel differently (as evidenced by voting with their feet, not moaning on forums and in surveys - because moaning on forums is what we as fans do) then the world of football will turn its back on VAR.
For me, it just seems natural that if technology exists to identify the mistakes of the human eye - and to inform fans of them seconds after they happen - then it's a good thing if that technology facilitates more accurate officiation. For me it's important that the scoreline reflects the number of goals that each side has legally scored. Most sports that are watched by millions have followed the same logic, including the quintessentially traditional sport of cricket, which prospered for longer than football before bowing to technology.
So my meaningless vote would be in favour of keeping VAR, improving its efficacy and the speed with which it delivers verdicts, and (as in tennis, cricket and other sports) becoming more interactive so the fans can engage with the decision making as it is happening.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I agree with this entirely
posted on 9/2/21
I voted remain and think VAR has a place in the game.
posted on 9/2/21
posted on 9/2/21
comment by Bãles left boot (U22081)
posted 1 hour, 7 minutes ago
Its weird that you compare VAR proponents to Brexiters when Brexiters are the ones longing for a bygone time when things were simpler and people were (supposedly) happier. Seems much more akin to the anti-VAR sentiment.
---
Sorry, but that just shows you don't understand the point I'm making. I made it pretty clear, and I don't want to have to repeat myself.
RE: the obvious decisions corrected, I've also said previously on this thread that I would be ok with VAR operating in that context. Clear and obvious errors was the initial remit, after all. But it's being applied consistently to marginal offsides, which by definition are neither clear nor obvious. The margin for error in the frame rate and timing of the player making the pass makes it a farce. The Dutch FA at least have the sense to recognize this.
Funnily enough I only commented after an Arsenal fan voiced concern that Peter Walton pointed out what the actual use case of VAR is supposed to be instead of this perverse pursuit of 'correct decisions in every aspect of the game.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
No, the remit was to improve officiating. Clear and obvious was a directive to show how the remit would be achieved.
"Clear and obvious" has been defined by referees to mean a matter of fact (as opposed to a matter of opinion). This was to allow referees to keep their subjective calls on penalty and red card incidents, but be corrected if their initial decision was shown based on incorrect facts (eg no penalty because the defender won the ball, actually the replay shows the defender didn't win the ball).
So if a replay shows a player was offside and it wasn't given then a clear and obvious error (ie an error of fact) has occurred by definition. The fact that there is hypothetical margin for error is not really an issue because that error can occur both ways and so it is entirely possible that the player was actually even more offside than the image shows. This can, and should be improved, but it is already much more accurate than the previous system which not only got these tight calls wrong more frequently, but got major calls wrong too.
As I said earlier - A lot of calls against VAR are because it isn't perfect (despite being an improvement over the previous system) but to dismiss an improvement because it hasn't yet reached perfection is to remove all possible advancement.
posted on 9/2/21
OK we're getting into the nitty gritty here. But IFAB said when VAR was introduced that it should only be used for clear and obvious errors, not marginal decisions. So I think it's fair to say it's part of the remit at the very least.
The margin of error in referring to isn't hypothetical.
Questioning what's happening is the only way to measure progress. You don't keep doing things in new ways because it must be better. If something is proven to be advantageous you adopt it. If it's found to be worse you revert back or try a different path to achieve your goals.
The goals of football as an organization is to make money.
The desire of fans is to enjoy the game.
It's pretty simple. Anything that doesn't advance either purpose can be said to be extraneous. I'm sure the whole noise over VAR and the replays probably appeals to TV audiences, especially in North America. But I am surprised how many fans the idea has on a forum like this.
posted on 9/2/21
comment by Bãles left boot (U22081)
posted 2 hours, 33 minutes ago
OK we're getting into the nitty gritty here. But IFAB said when VAR was introduced that it should only be used for clear and obvious errors, not marginal decisions. So I think it's fair to say it's part of the remit at the very least.
The margin of error in referring to isn't hypothetical.
Questioning what's happening is the only way to measure progress. You don't keep doing things in new ways because it must be better. If something is proven to be advantageous you adopt it. If it's found to be worse you revert back or try a different path to achieve your goals.
The goals of football as an organization is to make money.
The desire of fans is to enjoy the game.
It's pretty simple. Anything that doesn't advance either purpose can be said to be extraneous. I'm sure the whole noise over VAR and the replays probably appeals to TV audiences, especially in North America. But I am surprised how many fans the idea has on a forum like this.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yes and for the goal of improving referee decisions, VAR has proven to be advantageous. It has made decisions more accurate. There are other goals it will be looking to improve on like the time taken etc, but it is proving successful in the primary goal.
Yes the desire of fans is to enjoy the game. How many fans do you think enjoy it when their team lose, or is knocked out of a tournament, or relegated, due to a completely incorrect decision? Also you later state that you think VAR is popular with TV audiences, which make up the vast majority of fans.
The margin of error isn't hypothetical, but where a specific offside decision falls on that margin is because it isnt provable. In extremely tight calls there is a small chance that the player wasn't offside at the precise moment the ball was played. There is also a chance that he was more offside because he could have been on the other end of the margin. We cannot prove it so it is hypothetical. What can be shown is that in the closest image we have to the moment the ball was played, he was offside and so we give the offside. It is purely a more accurate version of a linesman, that is only used when a goal is scored to ensure teams aren't unfairly conceding.
I'm a fan because it makes football a better sport. It makes it more likely that the game will be decided by the players involved, rather than incorrect decisions by a referee. It therefore means it is more likely that the game will decided on sporting merit and luck.
posted on 9/2/21
Dang it, I've missed the obvious. Sorry folks.
They'll sell the VAR sponsorship. They love doing that, especially in the States it's normal to have 'half time sponsored by Chrysler.'. This gives them a prime time slot where viewers can't look away.
See here, one analyst described VAR as "the biggest sponsorship asset that football has ever created".
https://www.ft.com/content/700dfa86-70d2-11e9-bbfb-5c68069fbd15
posted on 9/2/21
I'm a fan because it makes football a better sport. It makes it more likely that the game will be decided by the players involved, rather than incorrect decisions by a referee. It therefore means it is more likely that the game will decided on sporting merit and luck.
---
OK best we leave it there. I respect your opinion but I feel differently, as you know.
My love of football was never tarnished by the occasional shocking decision. I took mistakes as a fact of life and a part of the game. I find the pausing and scrutinizing make the games less enjoyable to watch on a regular basis.
One last thing I'll say, is that it's not always worth pursuing being 'right' above all else. Women taught me that
Page 4 of 4