| Breast Cancer and VAR 21:16 - Apr 21 with 1498 views | Crawfordsboot |
Today’s semi final has given rise to much comment about the failings of VAR. Much of it is an emotional reaction to a dramatic match coloured by whether the commentator likes or hates United.
Today’s scans for breast cancer or brain tumour are best carried out by computers. They have a far higher, though not 100%, accuracy than do humans sitting reading scans. This is viewed as a good thing because by saving lives it gives a better outcome.
Football is just a game and unimportant in comparison to health issues however people’s jobs can depend upon a right or wrong call in sport. The reality is that VAR might get a few calls wrong, but it gets most right. It makes far fewer mistakes than the human referee or lino.
If we accept that on offsides and similar factual decisions VAR will be more accurate than you or me then the question simply is - do we accept the operational delay in the interest of getting a more accurate decision, or do we not.
For decisions of fact I think VAR is a positive.
On the use of VAR regarding interpretation I have some sympathy with those who are frustrated with the way it currently operates. I think it would be much simpler if a lone VAR assistant had the option to say to a ref - “ you might be right but I am not certain, can you just check this on the screen” leaving the ref to decide. (I.e. definitely not only referring clear and obvious howlers as happens now). This would be fairly quick and simple with no presumption that the referee would change the decision. It would though clear up obvious howlers fairly quickly.
Job security and the finances involved in winning or losing promotion are too great not to make use of technology where available. |  | | |  |
| Breast Cancer and VAR on 21:24 - Apr 21 with 1415 views | gtsb1966 |
You win the most ridiculous post of the year . |  | | |
| Breast Cancer and VAR on 21:29 - Apr 21 with 1395 views | Crawfordsboot |
| Breast Cancer and VAR on 21:24 - Apr 21 by gtsb1966 |
You win the most ridiculous post of the year . |
But:
it got your attention
You read it
It made the point that computers are more accurate than humans
It left room for a human over rule
Which bit did you find ridiculous? | | | |
| Breast Cancer and VAR on 21:36 - Apr 21 with 1373 views | gtsb1966 |
| Breast Cancer and VAR on 21:29 - Apr 21 by Crawfordsboot |
But:
it got your attention
You read it
It made the point that computers are more accurate than humans
It left room for a human over rule
Which bit did you find ridiculous? |
Because you're comparing cancer scans to VAR. You do realise that the prostrate cancer scan is less accurate than VAR. | | | |
| Breast Cancer and VAR on 21:41 - Apr 21 with 1334 views | GlasgowBlue |
Say what??? |  |
| |
| Breast Cancer and VAR on 21:43 - Apr 21 with 1316 views | Crawfordsboot |
| Breast Cancer and VAR on 21:36 - Apr 21 by gtsb1966 |
Because you're comparing cancer scans to VAR. You do realise that the prostrate cancer scan is less accurate than VAR. |
Oh good grief! - no I am not - I specifically distanced it!
I simply make the point that computer analysis is more accurate than human analysis. If you can’t see that then it’s difficult / impossible to debate with you | | | |
| Breast Cancer and VAR on 21:45 - Apr 21 with 1307 views | J2BLUE |
Technology more useful in some situations shocker.
It will take us some time to digest this. Ground breaking
. |  |
| |
| Breast Cancer and VAR on 21:46 - Apr 21 with 1300 views | Nthsuffolkblue |
| Breast Cancer and VAR on 21:36 - Apr 21 by gtsb1966 |
Because you're comparing cancer scans to VAR. You do realise that the prostrate cancer scan is less accurate than VAR. |
I have never known the Tesco scanner to get it wrong. Perhaps Tesco should be in charge of VAR. The home side can choose whether a local shop assistant operates it or it is self-scan. |  |
| |
| Breast Cancer and VAR on 21:47 - Apr 21 with 1296 views | NeedhamChris |
Can't decide the saddest part of this. Is it the bonkers argument you've put together here, or the time you assigned to it. |  |
| |
Login to get fewer ads
| Breast Cancer and VAR on 21:47 - Apr 21 with 1287 views | gtsb1966 |
| Breast Cancer and VAR on 21:43 - Apr 21 by Crawfordsboot |
Oh good grief! - no I am not - I specifically distanced it!
I simply make the point that computer analysis is more accurate than human analysis. If you can’t see that then it’s difficult / impossible to debate with you |
But I've just given you an example where it isn't...and I know that 100% believe you me. | | | |
| Breast Cancer and VAR on 21:49 - Apr 21 with 1259 views | Nthsuffolkblue |
| Breast Cancer and VAR on 21:47 - Apr 21 by gtsb1966 |
But I've just given you an example where it isn't...and I know that 100% believe you me. |
You know it 100%? You should be in charge of VAR! | |
| |
| Breast Cancer and VAR on 21:50 - Apr 21 with 1250 views | Crawfordsboot |
| Breast Cancer and VAR on 21:45 - Apr 21 by J2BLUE |
Technology more useful in some situations shocker.
It will take us some time to digest this. Ground breaking
. |
Indeed - and yet a surprising number of posters today use the argument “ it wasn’t offside - end of” or similar. | | | |
| Breast Cancer and VAR on 21:50 - Apr 21 with 1242 views | gtsb1966 |
| Breast Cancer and VAR on 21:49 - Apr 21 by Nthsuffolkblue |
You know it 100%? You should be in charge of VAR! |
Us v Norwich. Yes please 😁 | | | |
| Breast Cancer and VAR on 21:51 - Apr 21 with 1231 views | Crawfordsboot |
| Breast Cancer and VAR on 21:46 - Apr 21 by Nthsuffolkblue |
I have never known the Tesco scanner to get it wrong. Perhaps Tesco should be in charge of VAR. The home side can choose whether a local shop assistant operates it or it is self-scan. |
😁 | | | |
| Breast Cancer and VAR on 21:51 - Apr 21 with 1229 views | Bigalhunter |
| Breast Cancer and VAR on 21:43 - Apr 21 by Crawfordsboot |
Oh good grief! - no I am not - I specifically distanced it!
I simply make the point that computer analysis is more accurate than human analysis. If you can’t see that then it’s difficult / impossible to debate with you |
Sorry, but that is an utterly ridiculous comparison.
I’ve had to read it twice to make sure I wasn’t hallucinating.
Football is obviously important, but you have irretrievably dislocated your shoulder with that over reach. |  | | |
| Breast Cancer and VAR on 21:51 - Apr 21 with 1227 views | Nthsuffolkblue |
| Breast Cancer and VAR on 21:50 - Apr 21 by gtsb1966 |
Us v Norwich. Yes please 😁 |
I 100% guarantee you will get every decision right on that one. Even if Chris Sutton will disagree ... or maybe especially because he will! | |
| |
| Breast Cancer and VAR on 21:53 - Apr 21 with 1196 views | J2BLUE |
| Breast Cancer and VAR on 21:50 - Apr 21 by Crawfordsboot |
Indeed - and yet a surprising number of posters today use the argument “ it wasn’t offside - end of” or similar. |
I don't think the issue is whether it's offside. The issue is that we have been conned. It was supposed to be for clear and obvious errors. Now we're drawing lines, looking at it from every angle and taking minutes to decide. That is not how it was supposed to be. | |
| |
| Breast Cancer and VAR on 22:01 - Apr 21 with 1134 views | bluelagos |
| Breast Cancer and VAR on 21:53 - Apr 21 by J2BLUE |
I don't think the issue is whether it's offside. The issue is that we have been conned. It was supposed to be for clear and obvious errors. Now we're drawing lines, looking at it from every angle and taking minutes to decide. That is not how it was supposed to be. |
Yep
For me offside VAR should be simple - get the VAR to look at it and if he can't make a quick call from the graphic - i.e. If he needs to draw lines to decide if it's on or offside - then it is judged to be level - and thus onside.
Faffing around for minutes whilst they look at two incredibly close players is utterly ridiculous. Pre VAR it would have judged as level and that was the end of it. [Post edited 21 Apr 22:02]
|  |
| |
| Breast Cancer and VAR on 22:03 - Apr 21 with 1121 views | joepublic |
I think the long wait for Saturdays game is getting to folk.
Not long now and we can soon over analyse Middlesbrough's team selection and tactics.
Oh and VAR can get in the bin!
Those poor Cov fans celebrating that goal. 😢 |  |
| |
| Breast Cancer and VAR on 22:04 - Apr 21 with 1124 views | LankHenners |
Insensitive comparison aside, I think this post further bolsters my view that people who talk about the importance of football being precise and correct don't actually enjoy the sport for what it is. |  |
| |
| Breast Cancer and VAR on 22:04 - Apr 21 with 1108 views | Crawfordsboot |
| Breast Cancer and VAR on 21:53 - Apr 21 by J2BLUE |
I don't think the issue is whether it's offside. The issue is that we have been conned. It was supposed to be for clear and obvious errors. Now we're drawing lines, looking at it from every angle and taking minutes to decide. That is not how it was supposed to be. |
I don’t disagree.
In fact I tried to differentiate the clear factual ( offside etc) from the subjective handball or penalty calls accepting the former and looking to simplify the latter leaving the decision with the ref. | | | |
| Breast Cancer and VAR on 22:16 - Apr 21 with 1023 views | Crawfordsboot |
| Breast Cancer and VAR on 22:04 - Apr 21 by LankHenners |
Insensitive comparison aside, I think this post further bolsters my view that people who talk about the importance of football being precise and correct don't actually enjoy the sport for what it is. |
Fair comment and I enjoyed forty years of playing football without the benefit of VAR but at the very top echelons of many professional sports some form of computer or tv aided support is used. I can’t see that being reversed. | | | |
| Breast Cancer and VAR on 23:08 - Apr 21 with 887 views | Swansea_Blue |
| Breast Cancer and VAR on 21:43 - Apr 21 by Crawfordsboot |
Oh good grief! - no I am not - I specifically distanced it!
I simply make the point that computer analysis is more accurate than human analysis. If you can’t see that then it’s difficult / impossible to debate with you |
VARs are human beings, not computers. And as we've seen they are subject to making the same sorts of mistakes that the on-field officials make.
Today's incident in the cup semi was emotive purely for the occasion and that it denied what would have been an incredible comeback and giant killing. So I can understand why there's been a reaction. If it was offside it was offside though, and so be it.
What it has highlighted for me is we have to trust the operators. There's no way we can know for sure if they've got the exact right moment the pass was made nor if the line is drawn precisely. You have to assume both are correct, but there's two places where there could be errors. Some of the calls are so fine, you also have to wonder if they're even within the tolerances of the resolution/frame rate/thickness of the lines, etc. But we've got no way of checking any of that, so just have to put our faith in it being right. |  |
| |
| Breast Cancer and VAR on 09:02 - Apr 22 with 556 views | RobTheMonk |
I think you've actually made quite an interesting post here, but you could have perhaps worded the title a little better.
VAR can be a good tool, but at present the decisions seem inconsistent or over-analysed.
I don't think there's a perfect answer as there will always be subjective decisions in football. But as you say, the money is so large these days that VAR is needed. I think it's good for things like offside, but the process needs streamlined. We shouldn't be waiting two minutes for a decision. |  | | |
| Breast Cancer and VAR on 16:18 - Apr 22 with 376 views | Vegtablue |
| Breast Cancer and VAR on 23:08 - Apr 21 by Swansea_Blue |
VARs are human beings, not computers. And as we've seen they are subject to making the same sorts of mistakes that the on-field officials make.
Today's incident in the cup semi was emotive purely for the occasion and that it denied what would have been an incredible comeback and giant killing. So I can understand why there's been a reaction. If it was offside it was offside though, and so be it.
What it has highlighted for me is we have to trust the operators. There's no way we can know for sure if they've got the exact right moment the pass was made nor if the line is drawn precisely. You have to assume both are correct, but there's two places where there could be errors. Some of the calls are so fine, you also have to wonder if they're even within the tolerances of the resolution/frame rate/thickness of the lines, etc. But we've got no way of checking any of that, so just have to put our faith in it being right. |
One study has undermined VAR's credibility here for tight offside calls. Without installing sensors in every match ball, I don't believe we'll ever achieve certainty for the tightest decisions. And yet we pretend to have arrived at this point already. Semi-automated tech should improve accuracy at some point next season, but will it truly detect the instant when the passer's contact with the ball ends?
Plenty have suggested we should revert to the naked eye for VAR offside, but this would descend into uproar halfway through the first weekend. Goals would stand that were 20cm offside, while others would be disallowed that were only 17cm off. A Steve McManaman type would see two players level and claim the image was clear in one direction or the other, inevitably getting it wrong in the process. Neither does building in greater tolerance with the VAR technology work, as you're simply shifting the line of controversy, thereby creating further farce.
I'm firmly in camp "get in the bin". The improvement in accuracy has come at too great a cost, while inevitable inconsistency in VAR's application has arguably left clubs as vulnerable to refereeing mishaps/whims as they were before, even if the proportion of correct decisions has increased. The "clear and obvious" framework in other facets of the game was always destined to create this inconsistency of course. It appears we've since moved to re-refereeing all incidents in the event of a goal, haphazard intervention in the event of game-altering penalty shouts, and coin-tossing for defensive handball moments. I blame Gary.
https://theconversation.com/var-i-used-motion-capture-technology-to-show-why-the [Post edited 22 Apr 16:20]
| | | |
| Breast Cancer and VAR on 17:03 - Apr 22 with 321 views | You_Bloo_Right |
| Breast Cancer and VAR on 16:18 - Apr 22 by Vegtablue |
One study has undermined VAR's credibility here for tight offside calls. Without installing sensors in every match ball, I don't believe we'll ever achieve certainty for the tightest decisions. And yet we pretend to have arrived at this point already. Semi-automated tech should improve accuracy at some point next season, but will it truly detect the instant when the passer's contact with the ball ends?
Plenty have suggested we should revert to the naked eye for VAR offside, but this would descend into uproar halfway through the first weekend. Goals would stand that were 20cm offside, while others would be disallowed that were only 17cm off. A Steve McManaman type would see two players level and claim the image was clear in one direction or the other, inevitably getting it wrong in the process. Neither does building in greater tolerance with the VAR technology work, as you're simply shifting the line of controversy, thereby creating further farce.
I'm firmly in camp "get in the bin". The improvement in accuracy has come at too great a cost, while inevitable inconsistency in VAR's application has arguably left clubs as vulnerable to refereeing mishaps/whims as they were before, even if the proportion of correct decisions has increased. The "clear and obvious" framework in other facets of the game was always destined to create this inconsistency of course. It appears we've since moved to re-refereeing all incidents in the event of a goal, haphazard intervention in the event of game-altering penalty shouts, and coin-tossing for defensive handball moments. I blame Gary.
https://theconversation.com/var-i-used-motion-capture-technology-to-show-why-the [Post edited 22 Apr 16:20]
|
As well as the issues raised in that article we should remember that football is filmed at 50 frames per second. If an attacker and a defender are moving in opposite directions their relative position can change by up to one foot per frame. Any kind of super-imposed line, particularly one described as "definitive", is nonsensical. |  |
| |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
