VAR?

[Insert Amusing Pseudonym]

17 hours ago, 54_and_counting said:

Its not the system though, can you say one instance where the VAR tech failed and it wasn't operator fault

Even if theres one or a couple, thats amongst thousands of games with VAR in use 

You're confusing the system of VAR, with the technology.  

The system involves multiple manual checks of subjective calls in the futile hope of eradicating errors in judgement.  It slows down the game for a statistically negligible, and debatable, increase in accuracy.

Though the offside tech used is inaccurate and there are not enough cameras for it to ever give all necessary angles

 

[Thistle_do_nicely]

9 hours ago, RandomGuy. said:

Michael Stewart was talking about VAR during a game that didnt even have it on Friday.

"Pundits" are absolutely obsessed with it.

Oh christ, aye. Think that's actually happened a few times - generally said in a tongue in cheek/jokey way on the Friday coverage but "what would VAR have given there do you think?"

[DukDukGoose]

12 hours ago, craigkillie said:

The laws have to be open to interpretation because there is literally no other way to have a fair and functioning sport. I promise you that you could sit there and write any "tighter" definition of an offside or handball rule and immediately 5 people on here could drive a truck right through the middle of it.

If anything, the problem is that since VAR, the laws for both of those things (especially handball) have become overdefined, and have moved away from basic principles.

I'm maybe misremembering, but handball used to be accidental or not.

[Salvo Montalbano]

20 hours ago, RandomGuy. said:

Aye youre right, although looks like English football rejected the chance to move to that?

Seen a story claiming it wouldnt happen due to some league wide sponsorship with Nike.

Truly a sham of a league.

Aye, IIRC the microchip in the ball that they use to get the timings right for semiautomatic offsides is an Adidas proprietary technology.

[Busta Nut]

VAR is not a "Scottish ref" problem. It's shite everywhere I've watched fitba. 

This narrative it is a Scottish issue is bullshite

[craigkillie]

1 hour ago, DukDukGoose said:

I'm maybe misremembering, but handball used to be accidental or not.

Yes, the definition simply used to be "deliberate handball". If it was accidental it wasn't a foul, if it was deliberate it was.

[DukDukGoose]

1 hour ago, craigkillie said:

Yes, the definition simply used to be "deliberate handball". If it was accidental it wasn't a foul, if it was deliberate it was.

Simpler times.

[Les Cabbage]

P&B’s very own good guy/w**k indicator.

Mods can we use peoples’ votes on this to determine whether they’re a good guy or not and put little icons at the corner of each person’s avatar?

I’ve gone beyond reasoning with people that like VAR, I’ve come across a few in real life, they’re simply people that are no fun to be around and think football is a science rather than entertainment.

[Sortmeout]

The officials should be made to explain exactly what went wrong with the decision in the St Mirren game tonight.

[craigkillie]

I think it already has been explained on the Sky broadcast tbf.

[Sortmeout]

23 minutes ago, craigkillie said:

I think it already has been explained on the Sky broadcast tbf.

No it hasn’t. Unless I’ve missed something all they’ve said it “we only checked the shirt pull”. Where did they explain why they didn’t look at the handball? 

[Saint Paddy]

On 20/02/2024 at 12:42, Dons_1988 said:

The issue they will have with time limit is the inability to check the build up. 

As an example, rangers hissy fit from the OF game for a correct decision - in a parallel world with time limits, a referee may give the handball within your window of time but not have enough time to check the fact he was actually offside. 

If they get a pen when he was offside all along then we see the same outrage in reverse. 

There just isn’t a way to get accuracy and consistency whilst not disrupting the game and upsetting the paying customer. And that’s before you even get to the fact that many decisions are subjective and complex in any case. 

 

 

No

We go with the on field decision.

If a discrepancy is found in ten secs/20 secs/45 secs whatever metric is agreed, play is suspended until the whole phase is analysed. 

A clear and obvious error should be just that... clear and obvious.

If it requires a meticulous check, then that's not it.

Off side "should" be  if a player is obviously clear of the last defender. If you need lazers to define who is where... go with on field decision.

If my team score, but midfielder has pulled a defender away from the striker, and the ref missed it, if VAR can't see that in 15 secs.... f**k it, go with on field decision. But if its so obvious and they spot it in practically real time, free out... we move on.

The practical application of VAR isn't really the problem, it's the over analysis of objectively narrow margins, or subjectively ambiguous decisions.

Refs are paralysed with fear, its bullshit.

Get rid, asap.

[houston_bud]

3 hours ago, Sortmeout said:

No it hasn’t. Unless I’ve missed something all they’ve said it “we only checked the shirt pull”. Where did they explain why they didn’t look at the handball? 

You've got to assume that whoever was on VAR (Greig Aitken?) just completely missed it. Which seems odd as with one view of the shirt pull you couldn't miss that it hit his hand.

We often hear that 'everything gets checked', which most folk knew wasn't the case. It's now been confirmed that everything doesn't get checked.

We'll hear from folk now that "it's not the technology that's the problem, it's the people operating it". A nonsense argument, all things like this do is highlight that VAR doesn't (and can't) get everything right as humans make mistakes. We're spoiling the game as a spectacle chasing a perfection that is impossible to get.

[Swello]

4 hours ago, houston_bud said:

"it's not the technology that's the problem, it's the people operating it".

The National Rifle Association in the US have been using this argument for years - so at least it's been tested.

[Scary Bear]

One country has to be the first to get rid. Might as well be Scotland.

If they aren’t getting rid, then they should drastically scale back VAR intervention. 

In fact, no, get rid. There is absolutely nothing about VAR that I like.

Edited February 28 by Scary Bear

[Richie]

5 hours ago, houston_bud said:

We often hear that 'everything gets checked', which most folk knew wasn't the case. It's now been confirmed that everything doesn't get checked.

Depends who's playing.

There was a 5 min, detailed check on a routine  yellow card at Fir Park on Sun.

As noted elsewhere in the thread, the idea of "Clear and obvious" has been ditched  - Subjective reviews are a case in point.

If the review is ambiguous to the level that its down to a referee's specific interpretation of an incident, then it's surely not an obvious error.

 

[rainbowrising]

Last night wasn't human error but people not doing their job. There is a big difference. 

As for points raised about off-side based on quantum sized bits of humanity, in sports such as cricket if a decision is as tight as fk, it is "umpires call". If he said you were out then out you are and vice versa. Football has taken this to an agonising level to be "correct". 

[djchapsticks]

At the end of the day, they explained that the penalty for handball wasn't given as they weren't looking for a handball, only the shirt pull.

However - that simply doesn't wash as an excuse. It's not an acceptable excuse to say 'oopsie, we missed it....sowwy'. We suffered a few poor ones at the start of the season that were waved away with 'well it's inconclusive, what can you do, the angles weren't there' so to have the angles clearly there and them to have nowhere to hide so admit stupidity is not really consolation nor reassuring.

We're told that officials in Scotland are highly qualified and highly trained. VAR was put in place to catch 'clear and obvious' misses and last night was as clear and obvious as they come. There have been several - dozens - of incidents where an official is quite happy to take all the time required with lengthy checks before coming to a decision so the rush job of this particular decision, less than 20 seconds and missing a glaring error is baffling. What was the time constraint there in stopping and having a proper look rather than what amounted no doubt to a cursory glance?

Every club in Scotland has been on the wrong end of what feels like a laundry list of these decisions and every club in Scotland pays through the nose to keep a system in place that in effect is not bad but is run by utter incompetents.

It's about time that clubs actually banded together and outright refuse the process of the VAR money being deducted from end of season prize money. Collectively, clubs are being shafted here and it's all fun and games pointing and laughing when a team you don't like gets a shoddy one against them but in reality, we're all losers here as every one of our teams get a raw deal from it and pay for that privilege.

I'd be quite happy to see St. Mirren taking a stand here and publicly refusing to continue to pay a high premium for a service that is completely shoddy.

[tamba_trio]

On 20/02/2024 at 17:22, rainbowrising said:

On the assumption that it aint going away, what if we boil it down to some kind of cricket/NFL style thing where a manager has available 3 possible appeals in a game. I imagine it would boil down to mostly dodgy pens and the occasional very tight offside. The rest is the refs call. 

In cricket it isn't unusual to see teams blow all their appeals on crap decisions only to look on as a player should be out and they can do nothing about it, which is pretty much the old-school world most seem to want. 

This is the only way I could imagine it being kinda fun. 

2 or 3 challenges. If you're wrong with a challenge you lose a substitution, so you can't challenge for any old crap. And you have to specify what you're challenging (which gets communicated to the crowd, so they're not sitting in the dark about it).

That might be not awful. Maybe. 

[houston_bud]

51 minutes ago, tamba_trio said:

This is the only way I could imagine it being kinda fun. 

2 or 3 challenges. If you're wrong with a challenge you lose a substitution, so you can't challenge for any old crap. And you have to specify what you're challenging (which gets communicated to the crowd, so they're not sitting in the dark about it).

That might be not awful. Maybe. 

I honestly think this would be worse. 5 mins to go, team winning 1-0 with challenges remaining. It would just become a tool to waste time that would be hard to police. Managers would be telling players to go down, then use a challenge.

If it's not going to go away then it needs to be scaled right back, but even then we're still relying on people to decide what to look at. Any tinkering with it seems to be polishing a turd.