Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
1of4

VAR

Recommended Posts

25 minutes ago, BathRam72 said:

Er! yes you do.

 

What I mean is that they don't stop the game in flow. In cricket, as for a rugby try, the review is part of the theatre and doesn't detract, it actually adds. In football it works differently, because the natural flow of the game is spoiled.

Share this post


Link to post
eddie
30 minutes ago, BathRam72 said:

Er! yes you do.

 

No you don't, because cricket, by its very nature, is a game of 'set plays'. The play starts with the ball being bowled, and ends with it being 'dead'.

https://www.lords.org/mcc/laws/dead-ball

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)

Ridiculous there was no more added time after all that VAR stuff, but it must be said it was the correct call.... will go for you sometimes and against you. Scotland threw that match from 3-0, can’t be thinking they were hard done by when that’s happened.

Edited by Millenniumram

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, BathRam72 said:

Yes I know that but you don't allow the game to carry on while you review do you?

No the game is halted for the review

Let me explain what I think is being said and if at the end of that you still think you are right we'll leave it there.

In cricket, the game is not halted, the next - to use the Eddieism - 'set play' does not commence. Same for rugby, the game does not kick off again till the try has been awarded, or not.

You can say the same for goals in football, though I would argue the same two points again. One is that better technologies than humans reviewing cameras are available and the second is that in football the game is defined as two halves of 45 minutes intended to (hopefully) be played with minimal interruption. Also, football is a faster flowing game from end to end than, say, rugby. You don't get break away counters in rugby like you do in football to anywhere the same level so you have the opportunity to let the game flow a little while you assess it. Like in cricket, you're not affecting the outcome and the flow of the game to take time to review a decision in the same way you are with football. One other important point in rugby (and cricket - Mike Gatting aside) is that the players respect the officials far more, you don't get the crowding, pushing and endless questioning that exists from almost every modern footballer. So decisions are made, over turned and reviewed without the need for all the histrionics we see on a football pitch (men's game, tbf!).

So, when you consider all of that VAR is not something that integrates into the way modern football is played. It doesn't allow the momentum of the game to be maintained.

Plus, if a ref can't see that a goalie is - or isn't - standing on their line then they shouldn't be a ref in the first place.

Edited by BaaLocks

Share this post


Link to post
3 minutes ago, BaaLocks said:

Let me explain what I think is being said and if at the end of that you still think you are right we'll leave it there.

In cricket, the game is not halted, the next - to use the Eddieism - 'set play' does not commence. Same for rugby, the game does not kick off again till the try has been awarded, or not.

You can say the same for goals in football, though I would argue the same two points again. One is that better technologies than humans reviewing cameras are available and the second is that in football the game is defined as two halves of 45 minutes intended to (hopefully) be played with minimal interruption. Also, football is a faster flowing game from end to end than, say, rugby. You don't get break away counters in rugby like you do in football to anywhere the same level so you have the opportunity to let the game flow a little while you assess it. Like in cricket, you're not affecting the outcome and the flow of the game to take time to review a decision in the same way you are with football. One other important point in rugby is that the players respect the officials far more, you don't get the crowding, pushing and endless questioning that exists from almost every modern footballer. So decisions are made, over turned and reviewed without the need for all the histrionics we see on a football pitch (men's game, tbf!).

So, when you consider all of that VAR is not something that integrates into the way modern football is played. It doesn't allow the momentum of the game to be maintained.

Plus, if a ref can't see that a goalie is - or isn't - standing on their line then they shouldn't be a ref in the first place.

I totally agree with your last line and while I agree in principal with what you say.

I would argue that Rugby played well is just as fast and free flowing, it is just that the game lends itself to VAR/TMO better.

I also agree with the sentiment that Rugby players are more respectful and maybe tougher legislation should be bought into the game of football. (10 minutes in a sin bin for a yellow for instance-another topic i know).

But the only way not to stop a game for a VAR incident is to let the game carry on until there is a natural break, i.e ball goes out etc. This clearly would not work, so either we have to put up with it or get rid of it and except the mistakes.  

 

Share this post


Link to post
44 minutes ago, BathRam72 said:

But the only way not to stop a game for a VAR incident is to let the game carry on until there is a natural break, i.e ball goes out etc. This clearly would not work, so either we have to put up with it or get rid of it and except the mistakes.  

Or use technologies that don't require camera analysis. Look again at rugby players, they wear tags in their shirts that allow them to be geo-located to millimetres - you could (today - fact) use this for offside in real time and only alert the ref as and when an offside occurs (like the buzzer they all have at the moment that alerts them when the linesman wants to talk to them). Same for goal line technology.

My point is that the idea of a fourth person looking at a camera works in some games because it introduces theatre but the stupidity of it is that all you are doing is asking another human to have an opinion. In football we need to learn to do away with the desire to create theatre in return for something that is efficient and effective, at the same time empowering refs to own the game. Look at the point last night, the suggestion that the VAR assistant tells the ref that he didn't notice that one of two players he was supposed to be watching is off their line is a bit beyond stupid.

BTW - my point on rugby was not that it is not flast flowing but that counter attacks are less common so the ground that is covered in the time it takes to review a decision is less and, as such, there is less chance of a moment of (excuse the pun) impact.

Share this post


Link to post
1 minute ago, BaaLocks said:

Sorry, I promised I wouldn't reply but you took the discussion forward so I did anyway. Please except my apologies :-).

Please don't apologise. I value a good discussion. 

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
2 hours ago, BaaLocks said:

Or use technologies that don't require camera analysis. Look again at rugby players, they wear tags in their shirts that allow them to be geo-located to millimetres - you could (today - fact) use this for offside in real time and only alert the ref as and when an offside occurs (like the buzzer they all have at the moment that alerts them when the linesman wants to talk to them)

What purpose do the tags actually serve in Rugby, in play?

I don't see how that could possibly be a solution for offsides with the rules as they are, not without players having to adorn all sorts of extra bodywear. You'd have to have players wearing motion-capture suits!

A single tag on the shirt of a footballer isn't going to tell you whether Bryson's goal against Southampton should have been allowed or not. They'd have to have tags in their boots (heel & toe), a headband with a tag on the forehead, tags on the pointy bits of their knobbly knees! A sensor in every ball that tells someone the exact millisecond the ball was kicked?

p06y93ns.jpg

You can score a goal with the tip of your willy (just ask Darren Bent) - will we have to have breaks in the game while players adjust their jockstraps to make sure their sensors haven't slipped out of position after they got a bit excited in the aftermath of an earlier goal?

I can't imagine all that coming cheap, and what if it breaks?

Nope, sounds a nightmare to me.

 

Edited by Coconut

Share this post


Link to post
2 minutes ago, Coconut said:

What purpose do the tags actually serve in Rugby, in play?

I don't see how that could possibly be a solution for offsides with the rules as they are, not without players having to adorn all sorts of extra bodywear. You'd have to have players wearing motion-capture suits!

A single tag on the shirt of a footballer isn't going to tell you whether Bryson's goal against Southampton should have been allowed or not. They'd have to have tags in their boots (heel & toe), a headband with a tag on the forehead, tags on the pointy bits of their knobbly knees! A sensor in every ball that tells someone the exact millisecond the ball was kicked?

You can score a goal with the tip of your willy (just ask Darren Bent) - will we have to have breaks in the game while players adjust their jockstraps to make sure their sensors haven't slipped out of position after they got a bit excited after scoring a goal earlier in the match?

I can't imagine all that coming cheap, and what if it breaks?

Nope, sounds a nightmare to me.

p06y93ns.jpg

 

change the rule for offside.  the must be daylight between attacker and defenders torsos.  Forget the arms and legs thing.  As someone said the rule was designed to stop goal hanging

Share this post


Link to post
54 minutes ago, Coconut said:

What purpose do the tags actually serve in Rugby, in play?

I don't see how that could possibly be a solution for offsides with the rules as they are, not without players having to adorn all sorts of extra bodywear. You'd have to have players wearing motion-capture suits!

A single tag on the shirt of a footballer isn't going to tell you whether Bryson's goal against Southampton should have been allowed or not. They'd have to have tags in their boots (heel & toe), a headband with a tag on the forehead, tags on the pointy bits of their knobbly knees! A sensor in every ball that tells someone the exact millisecond the ball was kicked?

 

You can score a goal with the tip of your willy (just ask Darren Bent) - will we have to have breaks in the game while players adjust their jockstraps to make sure their sensors haven't slipped out of position after they got a bit excited in the aftermath of an earlier goal?

I can't imagine all that coming cheap, and what if it breaks?

Nope, sounds a nightmare to me.

You can geo-locate to within a few centimetres easily today with a simple tag inserted in the shirt at a lot less cost than cameras installed already. There has long standing been a view that offside should be reconsidered to allow benefit to the striker, meaning that you are only offside if you are clearly in front of the defender. So Bryson's goal, under a more reasonable interpretation of the rule, would stand because he's not clearly in front of the last defender. One tag, same place in each person's shirt (collar makes sense) would be all you would need.

That seems to make a lot of sense to me - a lot more than having some bloke watching it via a telly hundreds of miles away dressed in a ref's uniform twenty seconds after it happened.

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, BaaLocks said:

You can geo-locate to within a few centimetres easily today with a simple tag inserted in the shirt at a lot less cost than cameras installed already. There has long standing been a view that offside should be reconsidered to allow benefit to the striker, meaning that you are only offside if you are clearly in front of the defender. So Bryson's goal, under a more reasonable interpretation of the rule, would stand because he's not clearly in front of the last defender. One tag, same place in each person's shirt (collar makes sense) would be all you would need.

That seems to make a lot of sense to me - a lot more than having some bloke watching it via a telly hundreds of miles away dressed in a ref's uniform twenty seconds after it happened.

Yep, one tag centre mass. You’d get the occasional toe or elbow or til of a particularly big willy offside, but this way it would be black and white, either it’s offside or it’s not, no arguments. The rules are reinterpreted to simply say the tags have the final say as to what’s offside. If you want to translate it for lower leagues, you can make an allowance for half a yard offside (that’s how big my silly is), to give the striker the benefit of the doubt. 

They were bringing in lots of rules not long ago to give the striker the benefit of the doubt in the interest of creating more goals and more excitement, specifically in marginal offside decisions, the striker gets the benefit of the doubt. But var is taking that backward, we’re seeing far more goals ruled out that would normally be perfectly goals. That doesn’t lead to high scoring, exciting games. 

The goal keeper rule is similar. The only thing more exciting than a goal scored is a penalty saved. It’s hard enough to save a penalty as it is, without suddenly clamping down on rules that don’t make a difference to whether or not it’s scored. So you lessen the excitement by making the keepers’ job harder.

its all daft.  

Share this post


Link to post

In the USA v Sweden women's world cup match yesterday there was a new twist to VAR and offside for the USA 2nd goal. 

Carli Lloyd was shown to have been offside when the ball was played across. The swedish defender tried to clear but sliced it and an onside USA player booted it in.

The goal stood after review but both pundits (hope solo and casey stoney) were adamant that shouldn't. The basis of their argument was that the presence of Lloyd caused a defensive action (which went wrong) and by definition she must have been interfering......

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, HantsRam said:

In the USA v Sweden women's world cup match yesterday there was a new twist to VAR and offside for the USA 2nd goal. 

Carli Lloyd was shown to have been offside when the ball was played across. The swedish defender tried to clear but sliced it and an onside USA player booted it in.

The goal stood after review but both pundits (hope solo and casey stoney) were adamant that shouldn't. The basis of their argument was that the presence of Lloyd caused a defensive action (which went wrong) and by definition she must have been interfering......

I know, I watched that with amazement - it was everything that is wrong about the tool.

We're now using it (supposedly) to consider whether actions in open play are being missed. Again, I refer to rugby where the ref is mic'ed up and the ref clearly requests, with everyone hearing, what to look for - last night we had no clue, the ref was instructed to go to VAR and the whole momentum of the game was lost. The VAR assistant who seems to decide to call for the check, the ref last night clearly was not running that. By the time the goal was finally awarded, after it had been reviewed for reasons we were completely unsure of, it got little more than a light round of applause. Imagine if that had been Marriott's goal at Leeds and you are reduced to celebrating via a delayed link two minutes coz some jobsworth in a studio wants to 'have a look at it'.

Wrong on all levels and that showed it perfectly, the reasons, the technology and the implementation.

Share this post


Link to post

Not sure why but it seems the VAR decisions in the Women's World Cup have seemed much more contentious than anything in last year's Men's tournament

I think it's here to stay, but I hope they do tweak the rules to make the obvious frustrations with it less erm..frustrating

1. No more marginal offside decisions. Daylight between the upper bodies would be fair

2. No more keeper has to have one foot on the line rubbish. As long as they are not clearly miles off the line and moving forwards before the kick is taken that should be acceptable

3. Handballs in the area. It's daft when they show it in slow motion as it totally distorts the perception of how much chance there was for the defender to move limbs out of the way. A trickier one, but with the technology now they could easily set a time threshold between ball leaving boot and striking arm that would give a fairer idea of ball to hand/hand to ball

Share this post


Link to post

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account.

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.