comment by There'sOne7-0Reds (U1721)
posted 2 weeks, 1 day ago
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 44 minutes ago
I’m amazed we can m get to this stage and still there are some people coming out with the ‘the problem isn’t VAR, it’s the officials’ line.
Utter crap.
VAR is absolutely part of the problem and what the last couple of years has laid bare is:
- There’s simply no way of deciding what is clear and obvious. It’s subjective. So the games are being re-refereed. In many cases, you’re simply transferring the opinion of referee to the opinion of the VAR official, with the latter judging an incident out of context.
- Slow motion distorts the perception of intent. Referees watching replays are not judging incidents fairly.
- The very notion of having referees watching replays gives an unrealistic notion of consistency and perfection.
- Deciding incidents via replays leads to rules being changes for the worse; judging handball on the positioning of the hand rather than whether it was deliberate.
Of course there’s issues with the officiating.
But the actual concept of VAR has proven to have problems that come as part of the package - as some of us predicted before it came in.
Perhaps those making such stupid comments never go to a match and think football is a TV programme. Or perhaps they’re just too pigheaded to admit they were wrong.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Get rid of clear and obvious then, they rarely use it anyhow. If the VAR believes a mistake has been made, he calls the ref to the screen. If he's absolutely certain and it's not subjective then he informs the ref, without the need of the screen.
Slow motion is only supposed to be used for the moment of impact. If they're judging using slow motion for anything else which I agree they have done, they're using it wrong and not following protocol.
I don't agree being able to watch an incident back forces law changes, for example on handball. I do agree however the changes they've made aren't for the better. It seems to me they were designed to take away soke of the subjectivity but this hasn't worked. They tried to make a subjective decision which handballs usually are a matter of fact, or close to it anyhow. This hasn't worked, although to be honest I'm not overly impressed with how it was before the changes either as they didn't judge whether they thought it was deliberate, they took many factors into account and called it deliberate if these factors were met. It's extremely rare to see an actual deliberate handball.
However these are all things which can be worked on and improved. I certainly wouldn't want to go back to all the mistakes which VAR has highlighted and on many occasions fixed.
The three things I'd like to see which would make a massive improvement is independent VARs, removal of 'clear and obvious' and refining of the laws to help referees who on some occasions know it's wrong but can't change it.
It's also worth mentioning nobody is looking for perfection. You just want to make it as fair as possible and decisions as correct as they can be. Mistakes will always happen with humans involved.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Flashback to this comment with the incident at Wolves just now.
VAR using slow motion and still images to come to the wrong decision.
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 19 minutes ago
comment by There'sOne7-0Reds (U1721)
posted 2 weeks, 1 day ago
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 44 minutes ago
I’m amazed we can m get to this stage and still there are some people coming out with the ‘the problem isn’t VAR, it’s the officials’ line.
Utter crap.
VAR is absolutely part of the problem and what the last couple of years has laid bare is:
- There’s simply no way of deciding what is clear and obvious. It’s subjective. So the games are being re-refereed. In many cases, you’re simply transferring the opinion of referee to the opinion of the VAR official, with the latter judging an incident out of context.
- Slow motion distorts the perception of intent. Referees watching replays are not judging incidents fairly.
- The very notion of having referees watching replays gives an unrealistic notion of consistency and perfection.
- Deciding incidents via replays leads to rules being changes for the worse; judging handball on the positioning of the hand rather than whether it was deliberate.
Of course there’s issues with the officiating.
But the actual concept of VAR has proven to have problems that come as part of the package - as some of us predicted before it came in.
Perhaps those making such stupid comments never go to a match and think football is a TV programme. Or perhaps they’re just too pigheaded to admit they were wrong.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Get rid of clear and obvious then, they rarely use it anyhow. If the VAR believes a mistake has been made, he calls the ref to the screen. If he's absolutely certain and it's not subjective then he informs the ref, without the need of the screen.
Slow motion is only supposed to be used for the moment of impact. If they're judging using slow motion for anything else which I agree they have done, they're using it wrong and not following protocol.
I don't agree being able to watch an incident back forces law changes, for example on handball. I do agree however the changes they've made aren't for the better. It seems to me they were designed to take away soke of the subjectivity but this hasn't worked. They tried to make a subjective decision which handballs usually are a matter of fact, or close to it anyhow. This hasn't worked, although to be honest I'm not overly impressed with how it was before the changes either as they didn't judge whether they thought it was deliberate, they took many factors into account and called it deliberate if these factors were met. It's extremely rare to see an actual deliberate handball.
However these are all things which can be worked on and improved. I certainly wouldn't want to go back to all the mistakes which VAR has highlighted and on many occasions fixed.
The three things I'd like to see which would make a massive improvement is independent VARs, removal of 'clear and obvious' and refining of the laws to help referees who on some occasions know it's wrong but can't change it.
It's also worth mentioning nobody is looking for perfection. You just want to make it as fair as possible and decisions as correct as they can be. Mistakes will always happen with humans involved.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Flashback to this comment with the incident at Wolves just now.
VAR using slow motion and still images to come to the wrong decision.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Didn't see it. However as I said before, they're only supposed to use slow motion for facts. Position of offence/player, point of contact for physical offences and handball. Normal speed is to be used for intensity of offence.
And tonight demonstrated why using it for point of contact is flawed.
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 11 minutes ago
And tonight demonstrated why using it for point of contact is flawed.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
How so?
comment by There'sOne7-0Reds (U1721)
posted 6 seconds ago
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 11 minutes ago
And tonight demonstrated why using it for point of contact is flawed.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
How so?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Because they fixated on the contact and didn’t review the incident to decide there’d actually been a foul.
It’s not a non contact sport.
Anyone can see that was a dive.
The videos didn't clear up anything at all on that pen. Not much benefit to VAR on that one.
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 5 hours, 57 minutes ago
comment by There'sOne7-0Reds (U1721)
posted 6 seconds ago
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 11 minutes ago
And tonight demonstrated why using it for point of contact is flawed.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
How so?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Because they fixated on the contact and didn’t review the incident to decide there’d actually been a foul.
It’s not a non contact sport.
Anyone can see that was a dive.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
So implementation and the officials aren't using it well?
This thing where people highlight individual failures of VAR and use it to make conclusions is stoopid as fack. They don't make a list of when VAR saves the day, which is almost all the time, but when a mistake happens they start buzzing like flies around sheet. Low IQ peeps. VAR wasn't supposed to make the game perfect.
comment by Thorgen Kloppinson - "When the facts are in your favour, you argue the facts. When facts are not in your favour you argue the process." (U1282)
posted 1 hour, 26 minutes ago
This thing where people highlight individual failures of VAR and use it to make conclusions is stoopid as fack. They don't make a list of when VAR saves the day, which is almost all the time, but when a mistake happens they start buzzing like flies around sheet. Low IQ peeps. VAR wasn't supposed to make the game perfect.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
And if that were what I was doing, you’d be right.
But it isn’t.
One can draw their own conclusions about the intelligence of those who fail to understand such basic points as the one I’ve raised here.
comment by Thorgen Kloppinson - "When the facts are in your favour, you argue the facts. When facts are not in your favour you argue the process." (U1282)
posted 1 hour, 30 minutes ago
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 5 hours, 57 minutes ago
comment by There'sOne7-0Reds (U1721)
posted 6 seconds ago
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 11 minutes ago
And tonight demonstrated why using it for point of contact is flawed.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
How so?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Because they fixated on the contact and didn’t review the incident to decide there’d actually been a foul.
It’s not a non contact sport.
Anyone can see that was a dive.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
So implementation and the officials aren't using it well?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It’s nothing to do with the implementation.
The use of video in an incident like this means they have to look at slow motion and/or stills in order to review the incident. There’s not really any getting away from that, because if there had been no contact at all, it needs to be overruled.
However, as soon as you do that, you view the incident out of context and it leads to a flawed perception of what actually happened.
However, as soon as you do that, you view the incident out of context and it leads to a flawed perception of what actually happened.
=====
I disagree with this part, partially. Yes, looking at slow motion can give a flawed perception of what actually happened, but not everytime. In fact that doesn't even happen most of the time. Slow motion can also lead to correct decisions and that's what happens most of the time, but there are occasions where it changes the perception, admittedly, but those are not the norm IMO.
Also, you said it's nothing to do with implementation but didn't say anything about how the officials are using it. IMO the PGMOL's whole set up and outlook re VAR is the root of most VAR issues.
Would love to know on what basis you claim it’s not the norm.
They rarely watch any incident without slowing it down or including a freeze frame.
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 1 minute ago
Would love to know on what basis you claim it’s not the norm.
They rarely watch any incident without slowing it down or including a freeze frame.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Tbh the freeze frames are the worst for flawed perceptions. Sometimes they play the whole incident for the ref just once or twice and then just leave a gif of the freeze frame playing over and over on the screen for him to look at. It's ridiculous as there's no real structure or rules to VAR because of the manner in which the PGMOL views VAR. They don't have an open mind IMO and IMO they see it as threat or disruption rather than a tool they could harness enthusiastically for the greater good. Their rules around VAR are a joke IMO.
In any case, it doesn't matter most of the time what the VAR team shows the ref, does it?
You dismissed implementation as a basic problem with VAR but let me ask you this. Why is it everytime the ref is called over by VAR, the ref ALWAYS changes the decision? Surely, if everything were normal there'd be guaranteed that there'd be occasions where the ref sticks with his original decision. Football is subjective and VAR is supposed to refine decisions, not eliminate the subjectivity. VAR has been around for years and I've ever seen it happen I think two times only.
I've seen refs overturn good decisions or 50/50 decisions that needed no review to begin with because VAR called them over. So how is it possible that the ref changes his mind every time if there's no issues with the rules and implementation?
The rules and implementation of VAR are designed more to protect the PGMOL and their little boys group that sticks together no matter what, than to improve actual officiating of the game and all of football by extension. First rule is never expose one another, always protect each other and cover up anything where possible to do so.
IMO.
No I didn’t, I dismissed implementation being relevant to this particular criticism of VAR.
Last night was a great example of the part of my criticism of it.
That doesn’t mean there aren’t other issues with it.
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 40 seconds ago
No I didn’t, I dismissed implementation being relevant to this particular criticism of VAR.
Last night was a great example of the part of my criticism of it.
That doesn’t mean there aren’t other issues with it.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yeah that's right. I was making the point that based on that discussion about last night and especially your comment which I replied to "Because they fixated on the contact and didn’t review the incident to decide there’d actually been a foul" implies that the basic issue is with implementation and how it's used.
comment by Thorgen Kloppinson - "When the facts are in your favour, you argue the facts. When facts are not in your favour you argue the process." (U1282)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 40 seconds ago
No I didn’t, I dismissed implementation being relevant to this particular criticism of VAR.
Last night was a great example of the part of my criticism of it.
That doesn’t mean there aren’t other issues with it.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yeah that's right. I was making the point that based on that discussion about last night and especially your comment which I replied to "Because they fixated on the contact and didn’t review the incident to decide there’d actually been a foul" implies that the basic issue is with implementation and how it's used.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
In no way does it imply that.
What it says is that when you ask officials to look at slow motion and / or stills, it leads them to focus on a flawed perception of the incident.
They have no choice to look at those stills, though.
Which is a fundamental flaw in the use of VAR.
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 12 seconds ago
comment by Thorgen Kloppinson - "When the facts are in your favour, you argue the facts. When facts are not in your favour you argue the process." (U1282)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 40 seconds ago
No I didn’t, I dismissed implementation being relevant to this particular criticism of VAR.
Last night was a great example of the part of my criticism of it.
That doesn’t mean there aren’t other issues with it.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yeah that's right. I was making the point that based on that discussion about last night and especially your comment which I replied to "Because they fixated on the contact and didn’t review the incident to decide there’d actually been a foul" implies that the basic issue is with implementation and how it's used.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
In no way does it imply that.
What it says is that when you ask officials to look at slow motion and / or stills, it leads them to focus on a flawed perception of the incident.
They have no choice to look at those stills, though.
Which is a fundamental flaw in the use of VAR.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
So it does imply that, doesn't it?
The problem actually emanates from the "fundamental flaw in the use of VAR" AKA the implementation?
No it doesn’t.
Because they don’t really have a choice but to slow it down, because whether there was any contact at all is a factor.
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 2 minutes ago
No it doesn’t.
Because they don’t really have a choice but to slow it down, because whether there was any contact at all is a factor.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
But there's no real or effective rules around what they can play for the ref, or many other things. Smacks of underestimating VAR and not viewings it as something that needs attention, a sideshow rather than the main event, leading to sheet implementation, lacunae in implementation, poor training, unpreparedness and general confusion. The PGMOL even ignored the 3D offside other top leagues have been using on the basis that the tech will advance too fast for it to be a wise move, and we are the richest league apparently. Now we are stuck still drawing lines on a screen and they're making us look look like some neanderthals. That alone demonstrates their whole approach and attitude towards VAR.
They play what they think should be played or whatever they end up with in the mad rush and cat amongst the pigeons helter skelter confusion that follows every incident.
That maybe the case, but it doesn’t really change my point.
They don’t really have a choice but to look at the slow motion, but in doing so they see a flawed perception of the incident.
It’s a fundamental flaw of VAR.
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 24 seconds ago
That maybe the case, but it doesn’t really change my point.
They don’t really have a choice but to look at the slow motion, but in doing so they see a flawed perception of the incident.
It’s a fundamental flaw of VAR.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Well maybe if they saw it as something that requires actual training or even to be set up as independent from the PGMOL with dedicated VAR refs trained on such things then that wouldn't happen?
Also, sometimes they choose to show the ref the slow motion alone, or it's what they have managed to mash up, not sure I agree it's a complete lack of choice.
Once ref if called by VAR then they must have the clip ready with different angles, normal speed and also slow motion in order for the ref to make a well rounded decision.
But why does it even matter when the ref is guaranteed to overturn the decision every single time? VAR should just tell the ref to change his decisions instead of wasting time with him running over to the screen to view the incident, when everyone knows that the moment VAR calls the ref over, then that's it, kaput, over, done, finished. Decision already made. How is that even facking possible and how do they not see it as ridiculous?
comment by Thorgen Kloppinson - "When the facts are in your favour, you argue the facts. When facts are not in your favour you argue the process." (U1282)
posted 9 minutes ago
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 24 seconds ago
That maybe the case, but it doesn’t really change my point.
They don’t really have a choice but to look at the slow motion, but in doing so they see a flawed perception of the incident.
It’s a fundamental flaw of VAR.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Well maybe if they saw it as something that requires actual training or even to be set up as independent from the PGMOL with dedicated VAR refs trained on such things then that wouldn't happen?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I don’t think you can train people out of it, it’s human behaviour.
It’s proven that slowing things down increases the perception of intent.
I’m sure there are things that can improve tech in football, of course, but my main point was that this is a fundamental flaw of VAR and last night was a great example.
Sign in if you want to comment
Scrap VAR
Page 7 of 13
8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12
posted on 1/2/24
comment by There'sOne7-0Reds (U1721)
posted 2 weeks, 1 day ago
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 44 minutes ago
I’m amazed we can m get to this stage and still there are some people coming out with the ‘the problem isn’t VAR, it’s the officials’ line.
Utter crap.
VAR is absolutely part of the problem and what the last couple of years has laid bare is:
- There’s simply no way of deciding what is clear and obvious. It’s subjective. So the games are being re-refereed. In many cases, you’re simply transferring the opinion of referee to the opinion of the VAR official, with the latter judging an incident out of context.
- Slow motion distorts the perception of intent. Referees watching replays are not judging incidents fairly.
- The very notion of having referees watching replays gives an unrealistic notion of consistency and perfection.
- Deciding incidents via replays leads to rules being changes for the worse; judging handball on the positioning of the hand rather than whether it was deliberate.
Of course there’s issues with the officiating.
But the actual concept of VAR has proven to have problems that come as part of the package - as some of us predicted before it came in.
Perhaps those making such stupid comments never go to a match and think football is a TV programme. Or perhaps they’re just too pigheaded to admit they were wrong.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Get rid of clear and obvious then, they rarely use it anyhow. If the VAR believes a mistake has been made, he calls the ref to the screen. If he's absolutely certain and it's not subjective then he informs the ref, without the need of the screen.
Slow motion is only supposed to be used for the moment of impact. If they're judging using slow motion for anything else which I agree they have done, they're using it wrong and not following protocol.
I don't agree being able to watch an incident back forces law changes, for example on handball. I do agree however the changes they've made aren't for the better. It seems to me they were designed to take away soke of the subjectivity but this hasn't worked. They tried to make a subjective decision which handballs usually are a matter of fact, or close to it anyhow. This hasn't worked, although to be honest I'm not overly impressed with how it was before the changes either as they didn't judge whether they thought it was deliberate, they took many factors into account and called it deliberate if these factors were met. It's extremely rare to see an actual deliberate handball.
However these are all things which can be worked on and improved. I certainly wouldn't want to go back to all the mistakes which VAR has highlighted and on many occasions fixed.
The three things I'd like to see which would make a massive improvement is independent VARs, removal of 'clear and obvious' and refining of the laws to help referees who on some occasions know it's wrong but can't change it.
It's also worth mentioning nobody is looking for perfection. You just want to make it as fair as possible and decisions as correct as they can be. Mistakes will always happen with humans involved.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Flashback to this comment with the incident at Wolves just now.
VAR using slow motion and still images to come to the wrong decision.
posted on 1/2/24
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 19 minutes ago
comment by There'sOne7-0Reds (U1721)
posted 2 weeks, 1 day ago
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 44 minutes ago
I’m amazed we can m get to this stage and still there are some people coming out with the ‘the problem isn’t VAR, it’s the officials’ line.
Utter crap.
VAR is absolutely part of the problem and what the last couple of years has laid bare is:
- There’s simply no way of deciding what is clear and obvious. It’s subjective. So the games are being re-refereed. In many cases, you’re simply transferring the opinion of referee to the opinion of the VAR official, with the latter judging an incident out of context.
- Slow motion distorts the perception of intent. Referees watching replays are not judging incidents fairly.
- The very notion of having referees watching replays gives an unrealistic notion of consistency and perfection.
- Deciding incidents via replays leads to rules being changes for the worse; judging handball on the positioning of the hand rather than whether it was deliberate.
Of course there’s issues with the officiating.
But the actual concept of VAR has proven to have problems that come as part of the package - as some of us predicted before it came in.
Perhaps those making such stupid comments never go to a match and think football is a TV programme. Or perhaps they’re just too pigheaded to admit they were wrong.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Get rid of clear and obvious then, they rarely use it anyhow. If the VAR believes a mistake has been made, he calls the ref to the screen. If he's absolutely certain and it's not subjective then he informs the ref, without the need of the screen.
Slow motion is only supposed to be used for the moment of impact. If they're judging using slow motion for anything else which I agree they have done, they're using it wrong and not following protocol.
I don't agree being able to watch an incident back forces law changes, for example on handball. I do agree however the changes they've made aren't for the better. It seems to me they were designed to take away soke of the subjectivity but this hasn't worked. They tried to make a subjective decision which handballs usually are a matter of fact, or close to it anyhow. This hasn't worked, although to be honest I'm not overly impressed with how it was before the changes either as they didn't judge whether they thought it was deliberate, they took many factors into account and called it deliberate if these factors were met. It's extremely rare to see an actual deliberate handball.
However these are all things which can be worked on and improved. I certainly wouldn't want to go back to all the mistakes which VAR has highlighted and on many occasions fixed.
The three things I'd like to see which would make a massive improvement is independent VARs, removal of 'clear and obvious' and refining of the laws to help referees who on some occasions know it's wrong but can't change it.
It's also worth mentioning nobody is looking for perfection. You just want to make it as fair as possible and decisions as correct as they can be. Mistakes will always happen with humans involved.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Flashback to this comment with the incident at Wolves just now.
VAR using slow motion and still images to come to the wrong decision.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Didn't see it. However as I said before, they're only supposed to use slow motion for facts. Position of offence/player, point of contact for physical offences and handball. Normal speed is to be used for intensity of offence.
posted on 1/2/24
And tonight demonstrated why using it for point of contact is flawed.
posted on 1/2/24
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 11 minutes ago
And tonight demonstrated why using it for point of contact is flawed.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
How so?
posted on 1/2/24
comment by There'sOne7-0Reds (U1721)
posted 6 seconds ago
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 11 minutes ago
And tonight demonstrated why using it for point of contact is flawed.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
How so?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Because they fixated on the contact and didn’t review the incident to decide there’d actually been a foul.
It’s not a non contact sport.
Anyone can see that was a dive.
posted on 1/2/24
The videos didn't clear up anything at all on that pen. Not much benefit to VAR on that one.
posted on 2/2/24
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 5 hours, 57 minutes ago
comment by There'sOne7-0Reds (U1721)
posted 6 seconds ago
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 11 minutes ago
And tonight demonstrated why using it for point of contact is flawed.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
How so?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Because they fixated on the contact and didn’t review the incident to decide there’d actually been a foul.
It’s not a non contact sport.
Anyone can see that was a dive.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
So implementation and the officials aren't using it well?
posted on 2/2/24
This thing where people highlight individual failures of VAR and use it to make conclusions is stoopid as fack. They don't make a list of when VAR saves the day, which is almost all the time, but when a mistake happens they start buzzing like flies around sheet. Low IQ peeps. VAR wasn't supposed to make the game perfect.
posted on 2/2/24
comment by Thorgen Kloppinson - "When the facts are in your favour, you argue the facts. When facts are not in your favour you argue the process." (U1282)
posted 1 hour, 26 minutes ago
This thing where people highlight individual failures of VAR and use it to make conclusions is stoopid as fack. They don't make a list of when VAR saves the day, which is almost all the time, but when a mistake happens they start buzzing like flies around sheet. Low IQ peeps. VAR wasn't supposed to make the game perfect.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
And if that were what I was doing, you’d be right.
But it isn’t.
One can draw their own conclusions about the intelligence of those who fail to understand such basic points as the one I’ve raised here.
posted on 2/2/24
comment by Thorgen Kloppinson - "When the facts are in your favour, you argue the facts. When facts are not in your favour you argue the process." (U1282)
posted 1 hour, 30 minutes ago
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 5 hours, 57 minutes ago
comment by There'sOne7-0Reds (U1721)
posted 6 seconds ago
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 11 minutes ago
And tonight demonstrated why using it for point of contact is flawed.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
How so?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Because they fixated on the contact and didn’t review the incident to decide there’d actually been a foul.
It’s not a non contact sport.
Anyone can see that was a dive.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
So implementation and the officials aren't using it well?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It’s nothing to do with the implementation.
The use of video in an incident like this means they have to look at slow motion and/or stills in order to review the incident. There’s not really any getting away from that, because if there had been no contact at all, it needs to be overruled.
However, as soon as you do that, you view the incident out of context and it leads to a flawed perception of what actually happened.
posted on 2/2/24
However, as soon as you do that, you view the incident out of context and it leads to a flawed perception of what actually happened.
=====
I disagree with this part, partially. Yes, looking at slow motion can give a flawed perception of what actually happened, but not everytime. In fact that doesn't even happen most of the time. Slow motion can also lead to correct decisions and that's what happens most of the time, but there are occasions where it changes the perception, admittedly, but those are not the norm IMO.
posted on 2/2/24
Also, you said it's nothing to do with implementation but didn't say anything about how the officials are using it. IMO the PGMOL's whole set up and outlook re VAR is the root of most VAR issues.
posted on 2/2/24
Would love to know on what basis you claim it’s not the norm.
They rarely watch any incident without slowing it down or including a freeze frame.
posted on 2/2/24
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 1 minute ago
Would love to know on what basis you claim it’s not the norm.
They rarely watch any incident without slowing it down or including a freeze frame.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Tbh the freeze frames are the worst for flawed perceptions. Sometimes they play the whole incident for the ref just once or twice and then just leave a gif of the freeze frame playing over and over on the screen for him to look at. It's ridiculous as there's no real structure or rules to VAR because of the manner in which the PGMOL views VAR. They don't have an open mind IMO and IMO they see it as threat or disruption rather than a tool they could harness enthusiastically for the greater good. Their rules around VAR are a joke IMO.
posted on 2/2/24
In any case, it doesn't matter most of the time what the VAR team shows the ref, does it?
You dismissed implementation as a basic problem with VAR but let me ask you this. Why is it everytime the ref is called over by VAR, the ref ALWAYS changes the decision? Surely, if everything were normal there'd be guaranteed that there'd be occasions where the ref sticks with his original decision. Football is subjective and VAR is supposed to refine decisions, not eliminate the subjectivity. VAR has been around for years and I've ever seen it happen I think two times only.
I've seen refs overturn good decisions or 50/50 decisions that needed no review to begin with because VAR called them over. So how is it possible that the ref changes his mind every time if there's no issues with the rules and implementation?
The rules and implementation of VAR are designed more to protect the PGMOL and their little boys group that sticks together no matter what, than to improve actual officiating of the game and all of football by extension. First rule is never expose one another, always protect each other and cover up anything where possible to do so.
IMO.
posted on 2/2/24
No I didn’t, I dismissed implementation being relevant to this particular criticism of VAR.
Last night was a great example of the part of my criticism of it.
That doesn’t mean there aren’t other issues with it.
posted on 2/2/24
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 40 seconds ago
No I didn’t, I dismissed implementation being relevant to this particular criticism of VAR.
Last night was a great example of the part of my criticism of it.
That doesn’t mean there aren’t other issues with it.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yeah that's right. I was making the point that based on that discussion about last night and especially your comment which I replied to "Because they fixated on the contact and didn’t review the incident to decide there’d actually been a foul" implies that the basic issue is with implementation and how it's used.
posted on 2/2/24
comment by Thorgen Kloppinson - "When the facts are in your favour, you argue the facts. When facts are not in your favour you argue the process." (U1282)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 40 seconds ago
No I didn’t, I dismissed implementation being relevant to this particular criticism of VAR.
Last night was a great example of the part of my criticism of it.
That doesn’t mean there aren’t other issues with it.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yeah that's right. I was making the point that based on that discussion about last night and especially your comment which I replied to "Because they fixated on the contact and didn’t review the incident to decide there’d actually been a foul" implies that the basic issue is with implementation and how it's used.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
In no way does it imply that.
What it says is that when you ask officials to look at slow motion and / or stills, it leads them to focus on a flawed perception of the incident.
They have no choice to look at those stills, though.
Which is a fundamental flaw in the use of VAR.
posted on 2/2/24
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 12 seconds ago
comment by Thorgen Kloppinson - "When the facts are in your favour, you argue the facts. When facts are not in your favour you argue the process." (U1282)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 40 seconds ago
No I didn’t, I dismissed implementation being relevant to this particular criticism of VAR.
Last night was a great example of the part of my criticism of it.
That doesn’t mean there aren’t other issues with it.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yeah that's right. I was making the point that based on that discussion about last night and especially your comment which I replied to "Because they fixated on the contact and didn’t review the incident to decide there’d actually been a foul" implies that the basic issue is with implementation and how it's used.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
In no way does it imply that.
What it says is that when you ask officials to look at slow motion and / or stills, it leads them to focus on a flawed perception of the incident.
They have no choice to look at those stills, though.
Which is a fundamental flaw in the use of VAR.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
So it does imply that, doesn't it?
The problem actually emanates from the "fundamental flaw in the use of VAR" AKA the implementation?
posted on 2/2/24
No it doesn’t.
Because they don’t really have a choice but to slow it down, because whether there was any contact at all is a factor.
posted on 2/2/24
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 2 minutes ago
No it doesn’t.
Because they don’t really have a choice but to slow it down, because whether there was any contact at all is a factor.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
But there's no real or effective rules around what they can play for the ref, or many other things. Smacks of underestimating VAR and not viewings it as something that needs attention, a sideshow rather than the main event, leading to sheet implementation, lacunae in implementation, poor training, unpreparedness and general confusion. The PGMOL even ignored the 3D offside other top leagues have been using on the basis that the tech will advance too fast for it to be a wise move, and we are the richest league apparently. Now we are stuck still drawing lines on a screen and they're making us look look like some neanderthals. That alone demonstrates their whole approach and attitude towards VAR.
They play what they think should be played or whatever they end up with in the mad rush and cat amongst the pigeons helter skelter confusion that follows every incident.
posted on 2/2/24
That maybe the case, but it doesn’t really change my point.
They don’t really have a choice but to look at the slow motion, but in doing so they see a flawed perception of the incident.
It’s a fundamental flaw of VAR.
posted on 2/2/24
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 24 seconds ago
That maybe the case, but it doesn’t really change my point.
They don’t really have a choice but to look at the slow motion, but in doing so they see a flawed perception of the incident.
It’s a fundamental flaw of VAR.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Well maybe if they saw it as something that requires actual training or even to be set up as independent from the PGMOL with dedicated VAR refs trained on such things then that wouldn't happen?
posted on 2/2/24
Also, sometimes they choose to show the ref the slow motion alone, or it's what they have managed to mash up, not sure I agree it's a complete lack of choice.
Once ref if called by VAR then they must have the clip ready with different angles, normal speed and also slow motion in order for the ref to make a well rounded decision.
But why does it even matter when the ref is guaranteed to overturn the decision every single time? VAR should just tell the ref to change his decisions instead of wasting time with him running over to the screen to view the incident, when everyone knows that the moment VAR calls the ref over, then that's it, kaput, over, done, finished. Decision already made. How is that even facking possible and how do they not see it as ridiculous?
posted on 2/2/24
comment by Thorgen Kloppinson - "When the facts are in your favour, you argue the facts. When facts are not in your favour you argue the process." (U1282)
posted 9 minutes ago
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 24 seconds ago
That maybe the case, but it doesn’t really change my point.
They don’t really have a choice but to look at the slow motion, but in doing so they see a flawed perception of the incident.
It’s a fundamental flaw of VAR.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Well maybe if they saw it as something that requires actual training or even to be set up as independent from the PGMOL with dedicated VAR refs trained on such things then that wouldn't happen?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I don’t think you can train people out of it, it’s human behaviour.
It’s proven that slowing things down increases the perception of intent.
I’m sure there are things that can improve tech in football, of course, but my main point was that this is a fundamental flaw of VAR and last night was a great example.
Page 7 of 13
8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12