Match Day Thread Norwich City versus Tottenham

Good post DH. Two observations. First is that, because of the lack of transparency, we don't actually know that "there is no acceptance that there's a margin for error". Second, and connectedly, we need to recognise that the technology has not been developed by complete fools with no experience of applying it in a sports environment. Given which, it is surely extremely likely that those responsible for operating the system understand perfectly well about margins of error, and that agreed margins are in fact being applied in the decision making process.

Put another way, it is perfectly possible that the appearance of trying to achieve 100% accuracy conveyed by the images we get to see, is just that, appearance, and is giving rise to unnecessary controversy. It might be better to once again follow the practice elsewhere and be less fastidious about "keeping people informed" (which is a typically British aspiration arising from typically British suspicion that, when it comes to officialdom, something underhand must be going on). Since the process of putting the images up on the big screen undoubtedly lengthens the break in play, maybe we should settle for being less "informed" in return for shorter breaks in play.

 

VAR was brought in to deal with clear and obvious errors. If someone has to draw lines using minute measurements and then look at the image for several minutes to overturn a decision then even if the officials got it wrong in my mind it's not a clear and obvious error.

 

"Clear and Obvious" does not apply to off-sides; I just learned that this week. I wouldn't mind seeing that principle applied and VAR having to watch the replay at normal speed.

I also like this idea from DHCanary: "If for example the error is 5 cm, then the lines should be drawn to have that thickness, and if the lines touch/overlap, the on-field call stands." There is more than one way to fix the problem, I think. It has to begin with the FA being up front about the margin of error, what it is and is it being accounted for.

 

Football law-makers are to give VAR guidance, saying it should not be "too forensic" when it comes to offsides and used for "clear & obvious" errors

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/50944416

 

That's good news. This part, however, is not what I've been reading this week: He added: "What we really need to stress is that 'clear and obvious' applies to every single situation that is being reviewed by the VAR or the referee."

They need to get it together. Too bad they can't call a special meeting to get sorted instead of waiting til February.

 

The "clear & obvious" distinction should be the guiding principle, IMO. VAR is taking far too long, costing game time and breaking up the momentum. This is less of an issue in cricket or rugby, but it has a high cost in football. The off-side rule was introduced to stop goal hanging and it has done that. This is not like tennis, where the ball either touches the line or doesn't. It should be about whether a player is gaining an unfair advantage when the ball is kicked. If the ref or lino makes a "clear & obvious" error in this regard then the decision should be overturned. The officials on the pitch should decide and only be overruled if a "clear & obvious" error occurs. This would also mean that far less time is wasted. The point was made on the news this morning that if VAR had not been introduced, Liverpool's 13 point lead would only be 6 points.

 

Or do you mean it is taking VAR too long?

Do you think that there should be a limit of time or number of playbacks? i.e. if you can't see it in 3 then it isn't clear and obvious?

 

The best definition of "clear and obvious" is surely something along the lines of "what a well-positioned referee or linesman with unobstructed view could be expected to see in real time". Well-positioned cameras are capable of providing clear views of 99% of incidents, so can eliminate cases where e.g. the linesman is behind the play, or the referee's view is blocked by other players etc. Where VAR spots such a case, the match referee should be alerted and should then go to the pitch-side monitor to see for himself. He should watch the incident in real time and make up his mind on that basis.

 

Yes, precisely! The ref has to decide in seconds, so 30 seconds should be enough to spot a clear and obvious error. If none is spotted by 30 seconds, then it isn't clear and obvious and the game can continue.

The pitch side monitor is a good solution in American football, where the clock is stopped during a 'review', but it would take too long for football, where too much match time would be lost.

 

It’s perfectly simple to fix.

Only clear and obvious errors are overturned.

Only each team’s captain (in consultation with the manager) can elect to review a decision.

Two reviews each which are lost if a review fails.

That takes pressure off referees and puts it onto the teams. If the decision’s wrong, it’s the team’s fault for not reviewing it or for wasting their earlier reviews. No manager can ever complain about a decision after the match and any players complaining with the ref can be directed towards their own captain.

Call me a tin foil hat man, but the only reason I can think why anyone would object to this system is it makes match fixing via referees harder...

 

That would work like cricket

 

In some ways, but in cricket the decision is made by Hawkeye technology rather than a another referee in London looking at clip after clip to find the tiniest infraction. Hawkeye has eliminated goal line uncertainty without delaying the game. The key though is the 'clear and obvious' distinction to speed up decision-making. No drawing dotted lines or trying to measure minute differences. If it isn't obvious, it isn't overturned.

 

Agree!

 

I agree with a lot that has been said. The right decisions are being made by the wrong questions and implementation. For me it needs to be time limited and look for only clear and obvious errors.

Looking at the FPS argument, this applies to the moment of the pass. With the compression of the ball and subsequent release and final removal of contact from the passers foot do they/can they check all frames to the nth degree? Is this the area of discretion that they can favour Liverpoo and hammer us? What is their mandate? Favour the attacker or defender? If for arguements sake you at 50fps have two images, one off and one onside, both exceedingly marginal. How do they decide? It should be at the very least the onfield decision if not clear surely? Or maybe the attacking team?

And finally, could we look to improve things more with even more technology? All players wear GPS trackers these days, could these in some way be employed to give a very fast position check? You would need one front and back, but might be a way to quickly get an answer for each players centre mass.

Bah!

 

Will the tracker look like this:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:ArnoldRimmer1.jpg#/media/File:ArnoldRimmer1.jpg

 

Nah, more like a gadget Lister would have which also tells you how how much chicken vindaloo each player has consumed in the last 24 hours.