Discussion in 'The Hornets' Nest - Watford Chat' started by hornetboy1, Aug 10, 2019.
Agreed, up until this point referee's have had no ability in being able to stop a game.
The point of GLT is that it is (supposedly) instant and accurate to a couple of millimetres. VAR always requires watching a replay and does not measure the exact position of the ball.
Exactly, it would like getting rid of hawkeye in cricket lbw, because the third umpire watches the replay in slo mo.
The problem is it records the event as a positive (goal) by beeping, and thats all it does, so a false negative is the same as any other negative. It needs three outcomes, positive, negative and no result available.
It’s clear you need both to work together, and now allowances need to be made for GLT not being accurate which I’m sure will be the case going forward. The reality is it’s very very rare that a decision comes down to millimetres, obviously it happens (pusseto) But GLT will either say it’s a goal in which case VAR doesn’t really need to check anything, or no goal and a very quick review will confirm if it’s accurate.
Wasn't Pussetto's clearance 7mm from being a goal? I think at the time it's the closest that has not been given.
It was ridiculously close!
I might add the issue the other day appears to have been a combination of events obscuring one or some of the cameras. I’d say Hawkeye is accurate enough at making an actual decision (so VAR doesn’t need to check every goal) So if it signals a goal it means the system has worked. This issue is simply something stopping the system working, when it works it is accurate enough.
It's rare it comes down to millimetres in the context of every goal scored but I'd have thought most GLT decisions were questions of millimetres?
The problem I think is going to be the ones where GLT gives a goal and the opposition, sensing the technology is undermined, start demanding VAR checks because they disagree. Footballers are great actors, they can dive or pretend a blatant throw in they've given away is theirs. They'll so be back to bemoaning goal line decisions. While that should have no influence and isn't allowed for under VAR, in a big game will the pressure get too much? Whatever happens, Hawkeye are going to have to give very clear advice to the VAR about what exactly caused the 'occlusion' they referred to.
I think you’re right, that may well start to happen however the issue the other day was something stopping it working, so it couldn’t record a decision either way. When it works and triggers a goal or not, surely that’s accurate enough? I think someone said above, what it’s essentially missing is a no decision alert which is when VAR can step in, but as we’ve experienced that is an extremely rare occurrence.
It also requires some fairly immediate indication that the system has had gaps in its ball tracking. You have a "yes its working" for every frame of the sky pictures, if tracking is unreliable it indicates per frame "not avaialable". If less than 3 cameras can see the ball, it can't triangulate the position at all. Its fixable, but I imagine expensive to retrofix. The other answer is just VAR sanity checks the result.
Pussettos was close but seemingly had all cameras in view and gave a result, you couldnt say that it failed because a margin of error in mm could have been in either direction.. And it still gives a better result than a 5th official looking at 6 angles from VAR.
Here's a new one. Aaron Connolly won a penalty after unintentionally handballing it. So if he'd have scored, it would be disallowed. But because he was fouled, it was a penalty and a chance to score.
Terrible penalty in the end.
I wonder if its easier to referee with no fans?
Well least it's one less set of people to upset at the game !
With all the biased decisions and f*ck ups that are continuing to happen, I'd say it's about the same.
Son 'goal' was very borderline, looked to me like it was just his hand that was offside. They're bringing in margin of error for next season, aren't they? Not without time if so...
Tottenham's first goal did look as if it flicked a hand as well, one of those that absolutely wouldn't have been an issue pre-VAR, didn't spot it immediately. Not that goals should be disallowed over such trivial things, but the rules are the rules, what's the point of VAR if they're not going to enforce rules like that?
Right decision for the Son goal to be disallowed, well done VAR, but where were you when Sheff Utd scored against Villa the other night
The Villa fans will say that's karma for what happened to them at Palace, if so, I can't wait for our dodgy goals to come!
It was tight but his foot was off I think was the reason given.
As for "handball" - they do say you need some luck at the bottom.
At the instant the photo was taken, the line showing where the defender's backside was, ran right through Son's left foot. So his big toe was onside but his little toe was offside.
Of course, we don't know where Son's foot or the defender's backside were at the instant the ball was kicked because we don't have the technology. So if they can't be sure, they just have a guess. The important thing to remember is that VAR's job is to disallow goals and it has done its job. Well done VAR.
This handball stuff really is a lottery !
Simply depends on what the refs at the VAR each game think.
Which is how the interpretation of handball has always been.
Yeah and by the rules laid down by this forum, Chelsea should have had a penalty yesterday when the ball hit the arm of a player in the wall.
They all even out or something.
Isn’t there an inconsistency with the hand ball rules now that a defender doesn’t necessarily give away a pen for an accidental hand ball, yet the attacking team will be denied a goal if one of their players accidentally hand balls it?
The Moura one the other day was an absolute farce.
Did anyone notice that tackle on Mo Salah in the Villa box today, that was just brushed off as no chance of a penalty by the TV commentators.
Well IMO it was virtually the same sort of tackle that Capoue did yesterday and we conceded a penalty from
Makes no difference to Jonathan Moss. The fat barsteward is consistently awful.
Well they did say Salah has a history of going down easily.. if we are talking about the same incident.
Tbf Capoue can have no complaints unfortunately.
Quite honestly, if you don't think Capoue's foul was a penalty, you should probably give up watching everything.
In fairness I don’t think it was a penalty.
It was so blatant it was worth about three penalties.
But didn't you see Capoue's long and vigorous protest where he was demanding they consult VAR and doing the internationally recognised sign for dive? No, me neither.
I'm not saying that Capoue should not have been penalised, I'm saying that as Capoue was penalised then so should the Villa defender who fouled Salah have been.