Chasing VAR out of Scotland

[Ric]

6 minutes ago, Dons_1988 said:

It really isn’t Luddism. If the technology is not sufficient to address the human element of failure OR the fact that it’s trying to address subjectivity and interpretation, then the technology doesn’t work. That is not a fundamental opposition to ‘technology’. 

Although I will acknowledge @velo army point on value for money re goal line technology. But removing the cost/value, no one would have a problem with the technology itself. 

And I said it’s starting to feel like vindication as the wider football world seems to be slowly coming round to this simple fact. 

 

I'm not saying your argument is (neo) Luddism, it was more a general point that a lot of the criticism has been.

I cannot go with your claim that it is up to technology to address human error, it's just a tool, nothing more. In a slightly loose analogy, it's a bit like saying we shouldn't have speed cameras because drivers continue to speed, the technology is working as intended, it is human element that's the issue.

As for vindication, I get it, the large governing organisations are notoriously tone-deaf and I can understand why those opposed feel like they've been railroaded into this.

It might surprise some but I do have sympathy for that view.

[Dons_1988]

Always worth reminding people that the ‘technology’ is a few cameras and a guy watching videos. 
 

[Ric]

7 minutes ago, AJF said:

Technology is only useful if it improves what came before it. I think it has failed in that regard.

What it has done is highlighted the human error at the time, and not after many hours on Sportscene where no change to that decision could have been made.

The SFA has come out and admitted situations where the officials got it wrong. Can you tell me a single instance that happened pre-VAR? There might have been piece-meal instances, but never like this.

So the "failed in that regard" is not supportable imo because it is just too broad a brush.

Edited May 16 by Ric

[Ric]

3 minutes ago, Dons_1988 said:

Always worth reminding people that the ‘technology’ is a few cameras and a guy watching videos. 
 

Luddite!

Edited May 16 by Ric

[Ric]

22 minutes ago, velo army said:

You're right about this. Now I'm even more annoyed.

I suppose you could argue that Ludditism is regarding the followers of Ludd rather than Ludd's own view(s). I mean, I'm stretching here, but it is odd it's not flagged up as wrong when the philosophical term is Luddism.

[Dons_1988]

Just now, Ric said:

I'm not saying your argument is (neo) Luddism, it was more a general point that a lot of the criticism has been.

I cannot go with your claim that it is up to technology to address human error, it's just a tool, nothing more. In a slightly loose analogy, it's a bit like saying we shouldn't have speed cameras because drivers continue to speed, the technology is working as intended, it is human element that's the issue.

As for vindication, I get it, the large governing organisations are notoriously tone-deaf and I can understand why those opposed feel like they've been railroaded into this.

It might surprise some but I do have sympathy for that view.

To address your previous post, Kenny miller made a very bad argument against VAR. That particular incident was an example of VAR working well. I have never said it’s completely useless and I’ve always acknowledged that it will improve the accuracy of decision making. 

The assessment needs to go beyond individual incidents though. 

The speeding example is a false equivalence, people still speed but the technology is working because (I’m assuming) people speed less and as a result accidents reduce and thus lives are saved. That is an achievement in the case of traffic control and public safety, but we’re talking about sport here. 

If the goal of VAR was simply to achieve an incremental increase in decision making accuracy, then it’s been a success. Let’s be honest though, that wasn’t the goal. 

At the heart of it the goal was to try and remove controversy and noise around decisions and thus pressure and scrutiny on referees. To improve the reputation of the spectacle through accuracy of decision making. To remove a perception that refereeing decisions are costing teams success, costing managers their jobs etc.

It has achieved none of that, because those perceptions it was trying to address were always wrong. And it turns out in a huge number of cases, a ‘right’ decision simply doesn’t exist. If anything, the technology has made scrutiny on decisions worse than ever before and it has made watching football significantly worse.

So the simple view is - is the money, time and resource going into this worth the benefit, which can only really be seen as a small uptick in accuracy

[pozbaird]

Get VAR to fcuk. I could expand on that in a more erudite fashion, but is there any need? When it sees you at games jumping out of your seat at a goal, then thinking ‘will they find a way to rule this out for someone’s big toe being 2mm offside? Will they go back to a slight shirt tug in a ‘previous phase’? Is Goldson really getting away with that?

Piece of shite. The ‘matchday experience’ was better with Scottish referees doing Scottish referee things. Right or wrong. Referees and linos making on the spot decisions and we can argue about it later.

Luddite? Nah, just think VAR (no-one please tell me VAR is fine, it’s the fannies in charge of VAR who are the weak link here) is a horrible piece of dugshite. If we didn’t have VAR, those fannies wouldn’t be in a remote darkened room somewhere in the first place.

Fire into the sun.

Edited May 16 by pozbaird

[scottsdad]

VAR would be improved by removing the impartiality of it. Just have it manned by 3 fans of the home team in each case. 

[Ric]

Just now, Dons_1988 said:

To address your previous post, Kenny miller made a very bad argument against VAR. That particular incident was an example of VAR working well. I have never said it’s completely useless and I’ve always acknowledged that it will improve the accuracy of decision making. 

The assessment needs to go beyond individual incidents though. 

The speeding example is a false equivalence, people still speed but the technology is working because (I’m assuming) people speed less and as a result accidents reduce and thus lives are saved. That is an achievement in the case of traffic control and public safety, but we’re talking about sport here. 

If the goal of VAR was simply to achieve an incremental increase in decision making accuracy, then it’s been a success. Let’s be honest though, that wasn’t the goal. 

At the heart of it the goal was to try and remove controversy and noise around decisions and thus pressure and scrutiny on referees. To improve the reputation of the spectacle through accuracy of decision making. To remove a perception that refereeing decisions are costing teams success, costing managers their jobs etc.

It has achieved none of that, because those perceptions it was trying to address were always wrong. And it turns out in a huge number of cases, a ‘right’ decision simply doesn’t exist. If anything, the technology has made scrutiny on decisions worse than ever before and it has made watching football significantly worse.

So the simple view is - is the money, time and resource going into this worth the benefit, which can only really be seen as a small uptick in accuracy

I said it was a loose analogy, but there is merit in the speed camera comparison, it is an electronic tool providing a binary outcome. The better counter to that analogy is the result of the data provided by the tech isn't then passed through the prism of human evaluation, which is where it falls down.

As for Lundstam and Miller, yeah, that is low hanging fruit. You could equally point to a correct decision made by an on-field official being flagged back by the VAR assistant only to take ages and for the decision to remain the same.

In regard to the reasons and outcomes of VAR being introduced in the first place, if it was intended to improve the reputation of on-field officials then yes that has failed but I have to be honest I do not ever remember FIFA/UEFA/SFA explicitly claiming that was the aim.

I go back to my earlier point, when have we ever seen the governing body release a list of all the times officials made the wrong decision and to do so in some clarity? While that doesn't equate to the negativity that the delays and the human inconsistency/fallibility we've seen, I think it has been "a vindication" for those of us who for years have felt the officials considered themselves untouchable (externally, obvs there are internal reviews which we never see) for making dreadful decisions.

Just for clarity, I absolutely could not be a referee, for the few times I tried it at amateur level (pub league where someone was needed to stand in) it was an incredibly difficult job. That said, there are lots of difficult jobs that I'm not qualified for, that others do without error.

[Ric]

14 minutes ago, pozbaird said:

The ‘matchday experience’ was better with Scottish referees doing Scottish referee things. Right or wrong. Referees and linos making on the spot decisions and we can argue about it later.

It's all about opinions of course, but your match day experience may have been, it certainly wasn't mine. Meanwhile the "argue about it later" idea is pointless as it achieved absolutely nothing other than increasing the vitriol towards the officials in an ever increasing manner, only made much worse these days with instant social media commentary.

For me, to have something that highlights errors being made, and to do that in real time in an environment where the officials can review it, only to say "yeah, well that's not perfect, so we are just going to ignore that" is the real failure.

If officials made the correct decision in the first place VAR would not be needed, and sure, it's unrealistic to expect 100% success, only Health and Safety should be held to that standard, the negativity you feel when you think "Wait, this goal could be ruled out, aww.. f**k it has been, that's shit" is the negativity I feel when a wrong decision is made and stuck to and that is purely down to human interpretation. You can't complain that VAR is used to highlight someone is a toe offside when the rules state a player is offside even if it's their toe, that (to me) seems to be shooting the messenger.

 

Edited May 16 by Ric

[pozbaird]

1 minute ago, Ric said:

It's all about opinions of course, but your match day experience may have been, it certainly wasn't mine. Meanwhile the "argue about it later" idea is pointless as it achieved absolutely nothing other than increasing the vitriol towards the officials in an ever increasing manner, only made much worse these days with instant social media commentary.

For me, to have something that highlights errors being made, and to do that in real time in an environment where the officials can review it, only to say "yeah, well that's not perfect, so we are just going to ignore that" is the real failure.

If officials made the correct decision in the first place VAR would not be needed, and sure, it's unrealistic to expect 100% success, only Health and Safety should be held to that standard, the negativity you feel when you think "Wait, this goal could be ruled out, aww.. f**k it has been, that's shit" is the negativity I feel when a wrong decision is made and stuck to and that is purely down to human interpretation. You can't complain that VAR is used to highlight someone is a toe offside when the rules state a player is offside even if it's their toe seems to be shooting the messenger.

 

First line of your post is clearly the key here. It’s all about opinions. I agree that offside is offside, whole body offside, big toe offside, or Leigh Griffith’s forehead offside… my point is, having seen VAR for real now, I’d just prefer the lino’ to raise his flag or not, and not have it poured over by folk in a remote studio, drawing red lines, freeze framing incidents, while in the stadium, we’re shuffling our feet and wondering what’s for dinner tomorrow.

[Ric]

1 minute ago, pozbaird said:

First line of your post is clearly the key here. It’s all about opinions. I agree that offside is offside, whole body offside, big toe offside, or Leigh Griffith’s forehead offside… my point is, having seen VAR for real now, I’d just prefer the lino’ to raise his flag or not, and not have it poured over by folk in a remote studio, drawing red lines, freeze framing incidents, while in the stadium, we’re shuffling our feet and wondering what’s for dinner tomorrow.

Oh, it's far far too slow, and gets involved when there are times the decision is clearly correct without the need to do a review.

I fully understand the negatives people put forward, it's not like we can ignore them, they are as blatant as an official giving a late soft penalty to one of the OF!

[PauloPerth]

I love Wolves for this. Very well written and every point bang on.  It’s the most in-tune with supporter feelings thing I’ve seen a football club do in a while.

 

[Ric]

4 minutes ago, PauloPerth said:

I love Wolves for this. Very well written and every point bang on.  It’s the most in-tune with supporter feelings thing I’ve seen a football club do in a while.

Sorry for monopolising the thread this morning, and I'll let others get a word in after this.. ..but considering the position I hold on this, I think Wolves have done a decent job of threading the needle.

It is contradictory in places though, but I do welcome their official challenge as perhaps it might bring it to a head. I can't claim that VAR has introduced scrutiny to officials without accepting that same scrutiny needs to be directed to the process as a whole.

Edited May 16 by Ric

[AJF]

24 minutes ago, Ric said:

I said it was a loose analogy, but there is merit in the speed camera comparison, it is an electronic tool providing a binary outcome. The better counter to that analogy is the result of the data provided by the tech isn't then passed through the prism of human evaluation, which is where it falls down.

I'm not sure this is fully comparable because, as you mention, a speed camera will identify whether someone is speeding or not. There are only 2 possible outcomes determined objectively. With VAR, any outcome of a review will, more often than not, be subjective and open to interpretation.

A VAR review always boils down to a referees opinion on an incident (unless it's a factual check for offside).

[AJF]

6 minutes ago, PauloPerth said:

I love Wolves for this. Very well written and every point bang on.  It’s the most in-tune with supporter feelings thing I’ve seen a football club do in a while.

 

Hold on... do teams actually play a Premier League anthem at their stadiums  tinpot.

[Derryboy62]

On 12/05/2024 at 11:11, Kyle Reese said:

VAR improved my enjoyment of our match yesterday by arriving at the correct decision to overturn the penalty that wasn’t. 

VAR gave the wrong decision in the match between us earlier in the season when it incorrectly gave the penalty to Hearts at Dens.  

I'm assuming that you refused to celebrate it due to it being the wrong decision.....

Ps, the 7yo Kyle cried itself to sleep and then pissed the bed after Albert Kidd done the damage lol  

[accies1874]

It was a Wolves game that made me realise that VAR is utter shite. Ruben Neves scored this brilliant goal before VAR spent ages checking it for a potential minor offside. It got given in the end, but the whole situation was a "game's gone" moment for me. 

I've been to three Premier League games this season and they've all had extremely lengthy VAR checks, and despite them all going in favour of the team I was supporting, I was left fed up rather than happy. Then there's the shambles of the McTominay no-goal against Spain and even the doubt in the back of my mind while celebrating Shankland's v Georgia and Armstrong's against Norway. These were all correct decisions made by "the people running it" yet the existence of "the technology" caused the issue. 

[Ranaldo Bairn]

2 hours ago, PauloPerth said:

I love Wolves for this. Very well written and every point bang on.  It’s the most in-tune with supporter feelings thing I’ve seen a football club do in a while.

 

Wait... there is a Premier League anthem?? Hahahahahah

[The Master]

3 hours ago, Dons_1988 said:

Always worth reminding people that the ‘technology’ is a few cameras and a guy watching videos. 
 

There is technology underpinning the offside determinations. 

And no, it’s not “MS Paint”.