Poll: VAR or No VAR?

[FoxEye]

We're not though are we?

We are tho. Because of the margin of error.

Arguably the system is not accurate enough to make calls on offsides where the measurement is showing a 1 or 2mm difference.

In those cases you might as well toss a coin. The system isn't capable of making such minute determinations with 100% accuracy.

Even the size of the pixels on the screen the operator is viewing could make a difference to the decision. He could place his marker incorrectly by 1 or 2 pixels, causing the system to change from offside to onside or vice versa.

That's why I say we're treating a 95% accurate system with the authority of an infallible system.

The operator never says, "I can't be sure of this decision. It's too close to call."

Because the operator never says this, the margin of error is not being taken into account. Thus the system is being treated as 100% accurate.

 

[Kenai]

We are tho. Because of the margin of error.

Arguably the system is not accurate enough to make calls on offsides where the measurement is showing a 1 or 2mm difference.

In those cases you might as well toss a coin. The system isn't capable of making such minute determinations with 100% accuracy.

Even the size of the pixels on the screen the operator is viewing could make a difference to the decision. He could place his marker incorrectly by 1 or 2 pixels, causing the system to change from offside to onside or vice versa.

That's why I say we're treating a 95% accurate system with the authority of an infallible system.

The operator never says, "I can't be sure of this decision. It's too close to call."

Because the operator never says this, the margin of error is not being taken into account. Thus the system is being treated as 100% accurate.

A linesman doesn't say that either though because 'I don't know' isn't an acceptable outcome, it has to be on or off. No 'it's too tight to call', on or off.

VAR absolutely has a margin of error but you're talking about something in the order of +-50mm at worst (probably less imo), which is still massively better than a linesman which is going to be more like +-50cm (or 5m if you're Man City playing Southampton https://pbs.twimg.com/media/BkdZ4NNCMAEQBLq.jpg yes I'm still bitter about that goal).

Why would you want a system that might get it wrong by a few mm to defer to a system with a much bigger margin for error? "This system isn't good enough to judge 5mm so I'll use the one that's only good to the nearest half a metre instead, that'll be a more authorative accurate result". That doesn't make any sense.

We've got two systems available.

One is liable to make mistakes when you're down to mm, the other is liable to make mistakes in the cm to m range. Why wouldn't you prefer the one that's only prone to mm scale mistakes?

If VAR isn't accurate enough to satisfy you then a linesman definitely isn't accurate enough, so where does that leave you? There is no magic better system available today.

 

[FoxEye]

I'm happy for VAR review without the rulers coming out to measure (potentially inaccurately) ridiculously small margins.

In short, a "clear and obvious" rule for offside.

You've said there's no such stipulation and that's something that needs to change.

We can't continue trying to determine if a player was 2mm offside or not. That's not what fans want.

 

[Kenai]

I'm happy for VAR review without the rulers coming out to measure (potentially inaccurately) ridiculously small margins.

In short, a "clear and obvious" rule for offside.

You've said there's no such stipulation and that's something that needs to change.

We can't continue trying to determine if a player was 2mm offside or not. That's not what fans want.

That ultimately turns offside into something completely subjective though and one video refs interpretation of a clearly wrong offside call will be different to the next.

Personally I'm not sure this would end up resulting in less mistakes and less controversy than what we have now.

The example from today's Liverpool Wolves game, you'd just be deferring back to the linesman as whichever way he'd flagged that, under the current rule set you couldn't say either call would have been clearly and obviously wrong.

You'd end up only addressing really stupid calls like this - https://pbs.twimg.com/media/BkdZ4NNCMAEQBLq.jpg - and not the tight calls fans were crying out to be addressed with tech in the first place.

 

[Kenai]

Maybe what we need to decide as fans is whether we want accurate offside calls or just to remove stupidly inaccurate ones.

If we're going for accuracy, then we have to accept it has a limit and we might still get a few wrong when they're literally mm close.

If we just want to stop the stupidity then that's fine but comes with its own limitations and we have to accept a degree of inconsistency between different refs and what they deem to be clear and obvious.

Without scrapping offside entirely, we have to accept that it's a rule that fundamentally cannot be applied with 100% accuracy, it's a case of choosing which type of inaccuracy we prefer.

 

[FoxEye]

Well in that case, no VAR for offside vs current VAR for offside, I'd have to choose no VAR.

I can hand-on-heart say that the current VAR is killing my interest in the game, with the delays, the ridiculous rulers, the great goals being chalked off.

I used to think nothing could be worse than the blatantly wrong decisions, now I realise that is wrong. Current VAR for offside is worse.

 

[maun]

Only seems to be this country that moans about VAR and offside. I hear Italy dont do lines at all, if it's as close as it's been then it's not clear and obvious otherwise it is etc. Being offside because of an armpit is ridiculous, especially when you consider 9 times out of 10 that will be given handball.

 

[manic111]

Maybe what we need to decide as fans is whether we want accurate offside calls or just to remove stupidly inaccurate ones.

If we're going for accuracy, then we have to accept it has a limit and we might still get a few wrong when they're literally mm close.

If we just want to stop the stupidity then that's fine but comes with its own limitations and we have to accept a degree of inconsistency between different refs and what they deem to be clear and obvious.

Without scrapping offside entirely, we have to accept that it's a rule that fundamentally cannot be applied with 100% accuracy, it's a case of choosing which type of inaccuracy we prefer.

Or you go back to the old rule of "daylight", which could be applied more accurately and consistently

 

[Kenai]

Or you go back to the old rule of "daylight", which could be applied more accurately and consistently

I'm not aware of this ever actually being a rule, more of an urban myth.

Edit - looking it up, the current rule about any legal body part being beyond was introduced in 2005, before that the last change to that aspect was in 1990 where you were considered onside if level, whereas before 1990 to be onside you had to be behind the defender, level was offside.

All that's changed is now we're trying to actually accurately determine if a body part is offside and it's exposing how stupid that rule actually is.

 

[nicktay2605]

Supposedly the lines they show on TV are not the same lines VAR sees, they thicken them for TV so that people with smaller devices and poorer quality displays can still see the lines. I can't find the source for this now but someone linked to it in a Reddit discussion. It would make sense in terms of the extremely close offside calls we saw this weekend.

One thing that is certain is that VAR uses Hawkeye. At the World Cup Hawkeye used 240fps cameras and I believe they are using the same system in the Premier League. We see the VAR decision via the 50fps broadcast cameras but VAR has access to much higher frame rate cameras, meaning they can be more confident about things such as the moment the ball is passed.

One of the papers today suggested that maybe the answer is to simply remove the lines from what VAR shows us on TV. I believe the Prem is the only league in the world that shows those lines, maybe they were trying to make VAR more transparent for the viewers, but if the above is true about the lines then they're only hurting themselves.

 

[manic111]

I'm not aware of this ever actually being a rule, more of an urban myth.

Edit - looking it up, the current rule about any legal body part being beyond was introduced in 2005, before that the last change to that aspect was in 1990 where you were considered onside if level, whereas before 1990 to be onside you had to be behind the defender, level was offside.

All that's changed is now we're trying to actually accurately determine if a body part is offside and it's exposing how stupid that rule actually is.

Fair enough, I wasn't aware of that, but there's still an argument for changing the law to be "VAR appropriate".

Going back to first principles the point of offside is to prevent strikers goal hanging. Blowing up because someone's toe is a mm beyond the last man doesn't serve that purpose, it just makes the game needlessly scientific. I think daylight, or something similar, for instance a striker being onside if any part of his body is level with the last man, would move the game back towards giving the benefit of the doubt to the striker without detracting from the whole purpose of offside.

 

[Kenai]

Fair enough, I wasn't aware of that, but there's still an argument for changing the law to be "VAR appropriate".

Going back to first principles the point of offside is to prevent strikers goal hanging. Blowing up because someone's toe is a mm beyond the last man doesn't serve that purpose, it just makes the game needlessly scientific. I think daylight, or something similar, for instance a striker being onside if any part of his body is level with the last man, would move the game back towards giving the benefit of the doubt to the striker without detracting from the whole purpose of offside.

Agree with the first part. The rule needs changing in some fashion or another.

The second part though is surely just as open to the VAR faff? You'll still be making mm decisions based on whether the tip of his heel is level or not for example, all you've done is move where you're measuring rather than remove the need to measure.

 

[manic111]

Agree with the first part. The rule needs changing in some fashion or another.

The second part though is surely just as open to the VAR faff? You'll still be making mm decisions based on whether the tip of his heel is level or not for example, all you've done is move where you're measuring rather than remove the need to measure.

Fair point.

Would an easier method be to look at torso only? If there is no daylight between the torsos of the striker and defender, there's no offside?

 

[ThestigGT999]

How the Premier League table would look if VAR wasn't being used this season - Gameweek 20

Utd have benefited more from VAR than everybody except Brighton. Sorry @ThestigGT999 Manchestvar Utd.

Nope simply not true

 

[BaZ87]

Using the daylight idea or what Souness suggested last night, where they flip the rule so that as long as one small part of the attacker is onside then he's onside, has other consequences too.

At the start of the season everybody noticed how Liverpool were playing an even higher defensive line and one journo wrote about it, stating that it was something we've done because of VAR. The club were confident that tight offsides would now 100% be given so were confident enough to play higher up the pitch. What do you think teams will start doing if the rules where changed to allow attacker to basically have a 1 yard head start on defenders before being offside? It would be near impossible to defend balls in behind so teams will just drop to the edge of the box and we'll see far less attacking football as we do now.

 

[BaZ87]

Nope simply not true

No, it is true. The fact is that Liverpool have gone on to win games/pick up points at times when VAR has gone against them so those VAR decisions haven't influenced that make believe table.

Brighton have had the most net VAR decisions go in their favour and Utd the 2nd most

 

[Purdy]

The ‘if bad decisions stood’ table is a class argument

 

[HangTime]

These made up tables are stupid anyway because they assume that games would have played out identically except for goals awarded/overruled by VAR. This is a nonsense because e.g. say a team wins by 1 goal awarded by VAR, so they get 2pts extra from VAR right? But if the goal hadn't been awarded and the scores were tied maybe they would have attacked more rather than defended a lead. Maybe they would have scored another goal or maybe they would have left themselves exposed at the back and ended up losing. We just can't say.

I can just about see some sort of legitimate case for it when you get a injury time decision right at the end of a match leaving little time for either side to change their gameplan but you are not going to convince me that if a goal gets awarded/denied with ages left in a close match that it doesn't impact on the approach the two teams are taking.

 

[ThestigGT999]

No, it is true. The fact is that Liverpool have gone on to win games/pick up points at times when VAR has gone against them so those VAR decisions haven't influenced that make believe table.

Brighton have had the most net VAR decisions go in their favour and Utd the 2nd most

even if you take Liverpool out, look at the table


Leicester, Southampton and Bournemouth are ahead var favour etc...

 

[Azza]

Given the technology used and the margin of error, I can't see how it's possible to allow conclusive decisions in particular for offsides.

The law states

A player in an offside position at the moment the ball is played or touched* by a team-mate is only penalised on becoming involved in active play by: ...

*The first point of contact of the 'play' or 'touch' of the ball should be used

If you look at the frames that were used to give offsides, in particular from the weekend for the Brighton goal by Burn when Mooy passes it, and the Palace through ball to Zaha, the ball is clearly not in the 'first point of contact'. If the frames existed then they might show the player to be 1cm onside or 1cm further offside.


I'm sure it wouldn't be too hard to get the technology right considering the money involved by having a sensor in the ball and cameras on a runner that stay inline with the last defender.