Poll: VAR or No VAR?

[Kenai]

I'm not overly familiar with the technology, but it looks like Hawkeye only creates a 3D model/prediction for goal-line decisions (did the ball cross the line). The other decisions appear to be based purely on replays of different camera angles.

Multiple calibrated cameras for the 3D offside tech (3D being the system shows the vertical line on the crosshair).

The positions of various points are calibrated in advance allowing the lines to be plotted accurately. Angle of the camera etc isn't an issue except where a relevant body part is obscured, whereby they switch to an alternative calibrated camera.

Hawkeye and FIFA have a few videos kicking around, it's clever tech and I suspect a lot more accurate than people initially give it credit for.

 

[FoxEye]

Multiple calibrated cameras for the 3D offside tech (3D being the system shows the vertical line on the crosshair).

The positions of various points are calibrated in advance allowing the lines to be plotted accurately. Angle of the camera etc isn't an issue except where a relevant body part is obscured, whereby they switch to an alternative calibrated camera.

Hawkeye and FIFA have a few videos kicking around, it's clever tech and I suspect a lot more accurate than people initially give it credit for.

So riddle me this, why does a human operator need to move the lines around and make a judgement call?

If it was creating a 3D model it would be able to give a yes/no answer to the offside question, without any need for a human operator. Like the goal line decisions... No need for a human to review that, is there.

 

[BaZ87]

So riddle me this, why does a human operator need to move the lines around and make a judgement call?

If it was creating a 3D model it would be able to give a yes/no answer to the offside question, without any need for a human operator. Like the goal line decisions... No need for a human to review that, is there.

They have to mark the furthest point of the attacker and defender.

The only issue with the technology is the frame rate but this is still massively more accurate than any linesman's ability to make a correct call. Sky done something with Carragher and Neville on officials and linesmen basically admitted that they have to guess whether a player is on or off for close decisions because they physically can't look at the player playing the pass and the furthest forward attacker at the same time.

 

[mattyg]

People are only complaining when it goes against them. Offside rule needs to be chest or Shoulder. Like runners


Liverpool fan

 

[FoxEye]

They have to mark the furthest point of the attacker and defender.

The only issue with the technology is the frame rate but this is still massively more accurate than any linesman's ability to make a correct call. Sky done something with Carragher and Neville on officials and linesmen basically admitted that they have to guess whether a player is on or off for close decisions because they physically can't look at the player playing the pass and the furthest forward attacker at the same time.

Again if it was a proper 3D model the computer would be able to do this without any kind of an issue.

Computers can quite easily determine what is a head, a foot or an arm. Heck, they've been doing this since the Wii (etc). It's fairly trivial for modern systems, which can detect faces and all sorts of things.

So I still don't buy that the system is 100% accurate, if it needs a human operator to mark this and that.

 

[Kenai]

So riddle me this, why does a human operator need to move the lines around and make a judgement call?

If it was creating a 3D model it would be able to give a yes/no answer to the offside question, without any need for a human operator. Like the goal line decisions... No need for a human to review that, is there.

It's not creating a 3D model but they have two systems, one which can plot a vertical point (as used in the Premier League) which they call 3D and a simpler one which only plots flat lines on the pitch.

It needs intervention to pick the point which is the most advanced 'legal' body part but the system can then accurately plot this down to the floor and get the line in the right place thanks to the calibration and software developed by hawkeye.

 

[FoxEye]

It's not creating a 3D model but they have two systems, one which can plot a vertical point (as used in the Premier League) which they call 3D and a simpler one which only plots flat lines on the pitch.

It needs intervention to pick the point which is the most advanced 'legal' body part but the system can then accurately plot this down to the floor and get the line in the right place thanks to the calibration and software developed by hawkeye.

So what if the operator is off in his marking by a pixel or two?

That could change the result, right?

Sounds like human error could still be involved.

 

[BaZ87]

I'm not up with the latest tech to know whether a computer can judge the exact point your arm joins your shoulder. Is their potential for the VAR official to plot the points incorrectly? Yes but possibility of that is no where near as great as the possibility that a linesman makes a mistake.

Until somebody can come up with an alternative system or implementation of the current system that doesn't involve delays and uncertainty or produces more accurate decisions then imo our choices are this or nothing.

 

[Kenai]

So what if the operator is off in his marking by a pixel or two?

That could change the result, right?

Sounds like human error could still be involved.

Yes but it's going to be significantly less error prone than a linesman.

Nobody is claiming it is a 100% accurate infallible system.

It is significantly more accurate and reliable than a linesman trying to run dead level with the last defender(s), watching the attacker(s) to see if they're level whilst simultaneously looking in a totally different direction to ascertain precisely when the ball is being kicked, then watching the ball as it travels to check whether it takes any further touches, whilst still running dead level with the last defender(s), watching the attacker(s), making a judgement on whether any part of the body that could play the ball was too advanced and also judging which of those players he's been watching have been involved in the play.

It's a miracle the linesmen get it even remotely close.

It's not a question of 'is it perfectly accurate?' so much as 'is it more accurate than what we had before?' and I think it's hard to argue a man running up and down looking in three places at once is more accurate.

 

[FoxEye]

Yes but it's going to be significantly less error prone than a linesman.

Nobody is claiming it is a 100% accurate infallible system.

It is significantly more accurate and reliable than a linesman trying to run dead level with the last defender(s), watching the attacker(s) to see if they're level whilst simultaneously looking in a totally different direction to ascertain precisely when the ball is being kicked, then watching the ball as it travels to check whether it takes any further touches, whilst still running dead level with the last defender(s), watching the attacker(s), making a judgement on whether any part of the body that could play the ball was too advanced and also judging which of those players he's been watching have been involved in the play.

It's a miracle the linesmen get it even remotely close.

It's not a question of 'is it perfectly accurate?' so much as 'is it more accurate than what we had before?' and I think it's hard to argue a man running up and down looking in three places at once is more accurate.

OK but that doesn't mean we should have any confidence in the "2mm offside" decisions.

Because especially those could be wrong determined by marking a pixel or two out. Or even because the image is resolved in too few pixels on the screen.

I simply don't accept that these incredibly marginal offside decisions are accurate or good for the game.

 

[BaZ87]

It's a miracle the linesmen get it even remotely close.

If you can find it, watch the Carragher/Neville thing they done with the PL's officials. As I mentioned above, they pretty much admitted that they are having to make educated guesses on decisions. For example, by the time they've seen the pass played and look back to the last defender, if the attacker looks only slightly offside they will assume that at the point the pass was actually played they were most likely level.

There are obviously the odd decision that's massively on or offside but the vast majority of wrong decisions that they make are extremely tight calls. If we're not going to use the technology for these tight calls then there's practically no point in using it at all. VAR will still have to check every decisions, even if it just sticks with the linesman's call, but we'll only be getting 1% more decisions correct.

 

[Kenai]

OK but that doesn't mean we should have any confidence in the "2mm offside" decisions.

Because especially those could be wrong determined by marking a pixel or two out. Or even because the image is resolved in too few pixels on the screen.

I simply don't accept that these incredibly marginal offside decisions are accurate or good for the game.

Are they more or less accurate than a linesman?

For me it's as simple as that.

A 95% accuracy rate is better than 90%, even if its not 100%.

We shouldn't reject an improvement just because that improvement doesn't achieve perfection.

The alternative for these tight decisions is pretty much one bloke guessing (as described above) whether they were onside while he was looking in a different direction - why is that better?

 

[FoxEye]

Are they more or less accurate than a linesman?

For me it's as simple as that.

A 95% accuracy rate is better than 90%, even if its not 100%.

We shouldn't reject an improvement just because that improvement doesn't achieve perfection.

The alternative for these tight decisions is pretty much one bloke guessing (as described above) whether they were onside while he was looking in a different direction - why is that better?

I'm not saying there should be no video review tho am I?

Just saying that a system that can't be proved to make accurate decisions with no margin for error, should not be used to make offside decisions where the "offside" is 1 or 2mm.

This weekend is a great example. About 6 goals ruled "offside" when the players were level with each other, for all intents and purposes. One where only the tip of his fringe was more advanced (maybe!) than the tip of a foot... the rest of his body including both feet well behind the defender.

It's become nonsense because the fans looking at it can clearly see the players are level.

If it makes no sense to the fans it's not a good system.

 

[Kenai]

I wouldn't be surprised to see a 'benefit of the doubt' system introduced to arbitrarily give the decision in favour of attacker/defender when the plotted lines are closer than an arbitrary distance, as a means of placating those fans unhappy with the current absolute rules which need to be measured to resolve.

 

[Kenai]

I'm not saying there should be no video review tho am I?

Just saying that a system that can't be proved to make accurate decisions with no margin for error, should not be used to make offside decisions where the "offside" is 1 or 2mm.

This weekend is a great example. About 6 goals ruled "offside" when the players were level with each other, for all intents and purposes. One where only the tip of his fringe was more advanced (maybe!) than the tip of a foot... the rest of his body including both feet well behind the defender.

It's become nonsense because the fans looking at it can clearly see the players are level.

If it makes no sense to the fans it's not a good system.

That's all to do with the rules though, not the system.

It's the rules that say your fringe being too far forward is offside, not VAR.

VAR is undisputably better at assessing whether someone's fringe is offside than a linesman, what people don't like is the fact that it's even being measured in the first place.

At the moment the rules say that if your fringe is 1mm offside, you're offside. We currently have two options for checking that and I'll take VAR over the linesman every day of the week. It might be wrong every so often but I doubt the linesman will do any better than 50/50.

Until we have something better or a different rule to enforce, I think they've actually reached a remarkably good solution.

 

[BaZ87]

I wouldn't be surprised to see a 'benefit of the doubt' system introduced to arbitrarily give the decision in favour of attacker/defender when the plotted lines are closer than an arbitrary distance, as a means of placating those fans unhappy with the current absolute rules which need to be measured to resolve.

This would be the worst thing imaginable for me! We'd spend just as long determining whether somebody's armpit is 10cm on or offside as we do now, supporters will still be left not knowing whether they can celebrate or not and then end up making the wrong decision.

 

[FoxEye]

Could always scrap offside altogether

 

[Kenai]

This would be the worst thing imaginable for me! We'd spend just as long determining whether somebody's armpit is 10cm on or offside as we do now, supporters will still be left not knowing whether they can celebrate or not and then end up making the wrong decision.

Didn't say it'd be a good idea but I do think that's how they'll try to fudge it.

Clearly fans aren't happy with trying to determine offside in absolute terms, fans weren't happy with linesmen borderline guessing before, so maybe they'll be happy with a halfway bodge where when it gets close we just shrug our shoulders and give it to the attacking team.

 

[FoxEye]

Didn't say it'd be a good idea but I do think that's how they'll try to fudge it.

Clearly fans aren't happy with trying to determine offside in absolute terms, fans weren't happy with linesmen borderline guessing before, so maybe they'll be happy with a halfway bodge where when it gets close we just shrug our shoulders and give it to the attacking team.

Well I don't like the idea that we should treat a 95% accurate system with the authority of a 100% accurate system either.

As said, a few pixels out with their marking can change a decision.

That's still human error.

So either we "fudge" (your words), and acknowledge the margin for error that exists, or we remove the margin of error.

Pretending that a system with a margin of error is a fair and accurate way to determine offside, when we know in some cases it isn't, is hardly the option to settle on.

 

[Kenai]

Well I don't like the idea that we should treat a 95% accurate system with the authority of a 100% accurate system either.

We're not though are we?

We're treating it as a 95% accurate system that's better than the previous system.

A decision has to be made one way or another, if its not VAR making it in these marginal cases, then it's a linesman guessing.

That's not treating it as if it's 100% accurate, it's treating it as better than the alternative, which it absolutely is.

You're essentially arguing that if it's not 100% perfect then we're better off with the old system where a person is basically guessing. That's bizarre to me, I don't get why you would deliberately rather use a less accurate method, just because the other one isn't perfect.

It's like being able to afford an Audi R8 but because it's not a Bugatti Chiron you're going to stick with your second hand Audi A3. Why would you not just get the R8 and still work towards the Bugatti anyway?