VAR in Scottish Football

[Insert Amusing Pseudonym]

2 minutes ago, craigkillie said:

Based on your posts, I genuinely don't think you understand anything about how VAR (or a referee) operates.

The laws of the game make it very clear that the referee is the sole arbiter of the game. They are in charge of every single decision and outcome. When you have them, the two on-field assistant referees (and 4th official) are there to do exactly what is in their name, which is to assist the ref. The ref doesn't have to take their advice. If they disagree on any decision, be it offside, a throw-in, a free-kick, then the ref's opinion is more important.

The VAR (Video Assistant Referee) follows the same principle. They are still assistants, the only difference is that they are now operating remotely and have video replays available to them. This obviously means they're more likely to get decisions right, but there are plenty of subjective ones out there. This process also takes a long time and causes a delay to the game, so the laws of game have outlined a number of game critical decisions where VAR can intervene - this basically amounts to red cards, penalties and goals. In those cases, VAR will consult the replays and give advice to the referee. However, the referee doesn't have to take this advice - they can still choose to stick with their original decision if they want, and they also have the option of going to the screen to see it for themselves.

Therefore, VAR or no VAR, a referee is always going to be able to stick with their original decision if they want. After all, who is going to stop them?

Refs aren't final arbitrer on offside calls though, are they?  They get told it's on or off

[Ric]

6 minutes ago, Insert Amusing Pseudonym said:

Refs aren't final arbitrer on offside calls though, are they?  They get told it's on or off

No referee is going to ignore the advice of a 4th official who has full control over pictures, who can slow-mo it, move it frame by frame if needs be. It would only make that referee look incapable of accepting they could make a mistake.

[Durnford]

4 minutes ago, Insert Amusing Pseudonym said:

Refs aren't final arbitrer on offside calls though, are they?  They get told it's on or off

I think they can still overrule if they didn't believe the player in a offside position was interfering with play; blocking view etc. n reality they're unlikely to though.

One area they cant overrule is that is the goal line technology (Hawk-eye?) but even they they are responsible for certifying that it is working before every game.

[DukDukGoose]

56 minutes ago, HibsFan said:

Bridge for sale!

That doesn't even make sense.

[craigkillie]

56 minutes ago, Insert Amusing Pseudonym said:

Refs aren't final arbitrer on offside calls though, are they?  They get told it's on or off

They can still choose to overrule their assistant or VAR if they want to.

[Busta Nut]

1 hour ago, The Master said:

Cameras are standard broadcast cameras at 50fps.

Where are you hearing that?

It was rumoured they were basically looking at Go-Pros

[Ric]

32 minutes ago, craigkillie said:

They can still choose to overrule their assistant or VAR if they want to.

They can, but considering whoever is looking at the replay will have considerably more visibility and time, it would be an utterly foolish referee to dismiss the request for a review. Of course they could still say, "this is fine", but if it's not like the replay will be deleted, it'll be spread all across physical/social media, and the referee will know that they had the chance to address it at the time. While games are not decided by the court of public opinion, it has a significant impact.

In your lengthy reply to my previous post, you were alluding to the fact that referees are the final arbiter on the pitch. I never stated otherwise, more that VAR not only offers them an opportunity to recognise their mistake, if one was made, but allows a 3rd party to review it on behalf of the ref before they do to ensure there is validity to the claim.

It's not about overruling the ref, but providing them with the same sort of tools that pundits in a studio have. A ref can easily miss things on the pitch, but from multiple angles, in slow mo, frame by frame? You'd have to be one arrogant fucker to ignore that simply because you wouldn't want to admit you made a mistake in game.

Edited August 22, 2022 by Ric

[craigkillie]

7 minutes ago, Ric said:

They can, but considering whoever is looking at the replay will have considerably more visibility and time, it would be an utterly foolish referee to dismiss the request for a review. Of course they could still say, "this is fine", but if it's not like the replay will be deleted, it'll be spread all across physical/social media, and the referee will know that they had the chance to address it at the time. While games are not decided by the court of public opinion, it has a significant impact.

In your lengthy reply to my previous post, you were alluding to the fact that referees are the final arbiter on the pitch. I never stated otherwise, more that VAR not only offers them an opportunity to recognise their mistake, if one was made, but allows a 3rd party to review it on behalf of the ref before they do to ensure there is validity to the claim.

It's not about overruling the ref, but providing them with the same sort of tools that pundits in a studio have. A ref can easily miss things on the pitch, but from multiple angles, in slow mo, frame by frame? You'd have to be one arrogant fucker to ignore that simply because you wouldn't want to admit you made a mistake in game.

Again, I'm not sure you have understood how VAR works. There is no "request for a review", the review is carried out independently of the referee by the VAR, and the opinion of the VAR officials is then shared with the referee. The referee can then go and have a look themselves if they want, but can also simply take the advice of their colleagues (which applies to the vast majority of offside decisions, with or without VAR) or to immediately say no (which is obviously rare but possible).

Your latter part is again based on the assumption that every decision is black and white, and that there is always such a thing as a right and wrong decision. That is simply not the case in a lot of decisions, and even when a ref watches it back they may still disagree with the opinion of the VAR. That's not arrogance, that's simply having a different interpretation of an incident. Setting a high bar for changing your mind is always portrayed as a weakness, but in a lot of cases its that instinctive and decisive nature which makes someone a good referee in the first place.

[Ric]

10 minutes ago, craigkillie said:

Again, I'm not sure you have understood how VAR works. There is no "request for a review", the review is carried out independently of the referee by the VAR, and the opinion of the VAR officials is then shared with the referee. The referee can then go and have a look themselves if they want, but can also simply take the advice of their colleagues (which applies to the vast majority of offside decisions, with or without VAR) or to immediately say no (which is obviously rare but possible).

I said that the VAR is carried out by a 3rd party, you agree in your reply, I then said the referee is informed of their opinion, again you agree in your reply, I finally said that it was the referees decision to ignore the opinion of the VAR official, which again you agree with in your reply. I'm not sure where we are disagreeing here.

The bottom line is if there is video evidence that clearly shows the referee made the wrong decision and the referee chooses not to either review, or disagree after reviewing, then they will be seen as incompetent or stubbornly arrogant or perhaps both. If a referee ignores such evidence during the game, I would fully expect them to be pulled in front of a panel to discuss whether the referee was suitable for future matches.

Edited August 22, 2022 by Ric

[Ranaldo Bairn]

Reading this, I'm getting a pretty accurate sensation of how joyous the interminable waits for VAR decisions are going to be. 

[The Master]

1 hour ago, Busta Nut said:

Where are you hearing that?

It was rumoured they were basically looking at Go-Pros

Quote

The broadcast cameras operate with 50 frames per second, so the point of contact with the ball is one of those frames inside the 50 per second.

https://www.premierleague.com/news/1488423

[Busta Nut]

that's a link to another country

[kingjoey]

1 hour ago, craigkillie said:

They can still choose to overrule their assistant or VAR if they want to.

There is no known instance where a referee has been asked to, or has requested to, have a look at a pitchside monitor to rule on offside. That is never going to happen.

[SJFCtheTeamForMe]

1 hour ago, craigkillie said:

They can still choose to overrule their assistant or VAR if they want to.

Prime example of that would be a lineman flags for offside but the referee seen the defender actually played the ball and not the attacking player. 

Ignore the linesman's flag. Goal.

 

[topcat(The most tip top)]

2 hours ago, Busta Nut said:

Where are you hearing that?

It was rumoured they were basically looking at Go-Pros

GoPro can still do 1080 HD at up to 60 fps

[The Master]

14 minutes ago, Busta Nut said:

that's a link to another country

And the thread of discussion I was replying to was asking about how VAR determines offsides in that country. 

It’ll be the same in this country. We’ve already seen the 18-yard cameras used for Sportscene highlights. 

[Busta Nut]

3 minutes ago, topcat(The most tip top) said:

GoPro can still do 1080 HD at up to 60 fps

Hopefully they are good.

1 minute ago, The Master said:

And the thread of discussion I was replying to was asking about how VAR determines offsides in that country. 

It’ll be the same in this country. We’ve already seen the 18-yard cameras used for Sportscene highlights. 

ach well

[SJFCtheTeamForMe]

Why wouldn't they use the current tv feed the media use with additional camera feeds?

Go pros scream problems due to dead batteries, people in the way of the shot etc. I presume they'd be manned cameras 

Also most importantly how are they going to be able to do offsides with 6 cameras in the whole ground? 🫤 Lots of trying to judge offsides from stills that are nowhere near being inline?

Edited August 22, 2022 by SJFCtheTeamForMe

[Busta Nut]

3 minutes ago, SJFCtheTeamForMe said:

Also most importantly how are they going to be able to do offsides with 6 cameras in the whole ground? 🫤 Lots of trying to judge offsides from stills that are nowhere near being inline?

It's ok, Sky games will a lot more cameras. I am sure there will be a point where everyone has a similar amount of televised games...

[The Master]

4 minutes ago, SJFCtheTeamForMe said:

Why wouldn't they use the current tv feed the media use with additional camera feeds?

Go pros scream problems due to dead batteries, people in the way of the shot etc. I presume they'd be manned cameras 

Also most importantly how are they going to be able to do offsides with 6 cameras in the whole ground? 🫤 Lots of trying to judge offsides from stills that are nowhere near being inline?

Not being inline isn’t an issue because the cameras are calibrated to account for parallax. 

The main issue will be with players obstructing the view. If you look at the example on the EPL website, our VAR (at a non-Sky game) will only have the top angle, with the view of the defender’s foot blocked. The camera behind the goal might help, but not if it’s at the wrong end of the pitch.