Move the onus of VAR onto the teams. Move to a hockey/cricket situation - use your official VAR 'appeal' to have *just* the team captain contest the umpire's decision using their exact wording* - if your appeal is upheld you retain your right to appeal again and the decision's changed- if it's overturned you lose it. Anyone mobbing the ref is carded. *I saw a Kiwi appeal to the umpire that a goal should be disallowed because of a 'foot' offence. When the video was studied the goal was disallowed but because of a 'stick' offence and the Kiwis lost their further appeals.
Cricket has umpires call where even if hawkeye thinks it might have hit the stumps, an lbw can be still not out if it's very close. Football offsides need something similar. I dont know what it is but ill give my views anyway; 1. Maybe the VAR ref needs to be rat faced. You take out 95% error but reintroduce a new more random error that isnt as bad as Moss or Oliver. 2. VAR ref only gets 2 views or 15 seconds to view. If he cant be sure in that then its "refs call" 3. When we get a VAR review theres dancing girls, fireworks and greyhound racing. Bit of razzmatazz 4. If the ref got the decision right in the first place he is given a chutzpah into his premier league profile. Accompanied by a 5 second video of ref looking smug and a theme tune for each ref. You can buy ref shirts at the grounds from 2021.
The real reason is that celebrations are often the most photographed moment and used in all media outlets. Companies pay a lot of money to be shirt sponsors and want to see their logo in news articles the next day.
if all players wear gps on their socks or shirt, all gps positioned on the body in the same place then a computer makes the decision precisely.
GPS unfortunately only has an accuracy of about +/-5m, depending on several variables like the number of satellites the device 'can see'.
Ok...I'll attempt to explain my point... A lot of recent argument has been about whether VAR should be used to disallow goals where part of the attacker is shown to be a very small distance beyond the assumed "offside line"...the objections to this approach include: if VAR is meant to eliminate decisions that are clearly bad errors, is such a small distance evidence of a "bad error"? Particularly in the context of the concern about: can the technology create a 100% accurate "offside line" drawn across the pitch at the very split-second the forward pass is made? So 2 concerns are raised. Is such a close decision a "bad error" & is the technology able to deliver an adequately accurate datum point upon which to disallow a goal by a very marginal amount? By having a (suggested) 4 inch "Ref's call" zone the problem is NOT moved 4 inches further forward....the 4 inch zone is there to enable there to be a balance that allows for natural deviation in the accuracy of the images generated & the avowed intent to eliminate BAD errors to be compensated for. The hindmost point of the last defender is taken as the "offside line"; if the "offending" part(s) of the attacker is seen to be wholly inside the "ref's call" zone, the goal is allowed. If not, it is disallowed. The problem with the way "quasi-VAR" discussions have been evidenced on TV recently is that people are trying to assess simultaneously the inter-relationship of the exact position of the attacker & the defender & the offside line. By allowing for a "ref's call" zone the assessment will only be required between the attacker & the end of the zone....less complex & even half an inch beyond that line is, actually, 4.5 inches beyond the putative offside line; far enough to be deemed a sufficiently "bad" error to justify being over-ruled. It is a similar principle to LBW & ball-tracking in cricket & seems to work well.
Over the course of a season correct calls should even themselves out; the advantage to me is I don't like being manipulated by the deliberate maintenance of contention as an instrument for artificially stimulating the game so as to sell more 'excitement'. The technology exists and it is now artificial to not use it. Contention will always exist within the game, I don't like the idea of artificially exacerbating it. It is the thin end of the wedge towards turning pro football into World-Wide-Wrestling, or whatever it's called. The more they promote the Jon Mosses of the game the less likely I am to continue watching it.
I have long thought that the offline law is far too complicated. It should be simplified. If a player is offside, then it is offside, regardless of whether the ball is going to him or not. Go back to the old way. Also, now we have VAR, depending on how good the camera angles are, I think when they measure a tight call, they only look at where the feet are, and measure a line across from the foot of a player. So often you see this marginal offside where a player's head is offside slightly, but the rest of his body is onside when players are running through on goal. When it's a straight race and a player has been played in on goal, then it's the feet that should be looked at when deciding what's offside. Now, I do not have an objection for an alteration to this in the penalty area, where all scoring parts of the body are regarded as offside, as you can score a header from within the penalty area, but it's highly unlikely you'll head a goal from the half way line. I think VAR has to be used in this way, rather than getting into a nonsense of trying to determine if a player's nose is offside when he receives a ball on the half way line. We don't want to waste time on technicalities like this.
I understood why you were making your point completely. I agree it works well in cricket, very well in fact, though it could be quicker, the review of video is a little slow and cumbersome while the umpire direct the guys to move to the next view. I'll attempt to explain my point... In cricket there is no "acceptable error". There is uncertainty over whether the software will track the ball 100% accurately therefore if the software says it will just flick the bails, the umpire is given the benefit of the doubt because you can't be sure he was wrong. In football if someone was 2 inches offside, he was offside, end of story. Therefore I find the "bad errors" intention flawed as you then need to define what a bad error is. If that is set as 4 inches, then you now have 2 problems as you are saying 1/ a goal that was clearly 2 inches offside is ok, and 2/ you move the "was he, wasn't he" debate by 4 inches as you now need to debate whether someone was 2mm in or outside that 4 inch zone. For these reasons I feel you may as well have that 2mm "in or out debate" at the 0 inches line and only over-rule the referee if it's clear he's made an error, be that by an inch or smaller. Better to overrule a "clear error" rather than just a "bad error". Just my view.
Fair enough if true. But whatever system all the clubs use in training then is a complete waste of time and money. I would have thought that a system that has been used by club's for many years could be implemented into the game successfully to suit the purpose.
For Chrissake: VAR is simply there to help the ref make what he considers is a good call. It is still the referee's call. That's it.
VAR should only be used to stop clear and obvious errors, not to correct where decision could have gone either way. Refs should also be miked up so if does go to VAR crowd know what is being discussed, won't happen though due to abuse given by players to the ref.
As an absolute measure when trying to compare very small differences in an offside situation 5m is a lot. When measuring how far someone has run in an hour 5m is not a lot. Besides incrementally GPS isn't that bad. By that I mean the delta between 2 positions as a player runs from point A to point B. If its sampling every second then although the absolute might be out, the delta between 2 positions is quite good because both points in theory will have the same absolute error (shift).
People need to realise that there will be no ‘clear and obvious error’ element to offside decisions under VAR. It will be an absolute judgement like the ball over the goal line, hence the big toe being enough to mean a player is offside. The other misconception is that the ref can ‘call for VAR’. This is not the case; it’s the other way round: the VAR looks at all relevant incidents and instructs the ref when there is a possible error. So there should be no question of players haranguing the ref to ‘go to VAR’. For the record I am not in favour of the introduction of VAR.
That’s actually good. I’m more interested in the football than the often confected controversy over decisions. ‘Merse, was that a pen?’
I would prefer this fellow to Jon Moss. Although a pair of shorts wouldn’t go amiss. Worst outcome: naked Moss.
With robot players, you can imagine the kind of ghastly prototypes & obsolescences which Gino would buy off eBay.
Listening to a podcast of Radio Leicester post-match coverage (listening smugly to defeated pundits shortened the journey home from work) it seems there was some friction between the commentary team and some horns' sitting in front of them. Presumably caused by their over enthusiastic celebration of Vardy's goal. Having listened to that, Gray's winner just got even better. And they are still bitter about that goal.
I feel quite unwell! Could we use this chap to decide on the best Revels and create the perfect debate?
Last season I was sitting high up in the SEJ when the opposition scored, (I'm sure it was Huddersfield), and whoever their radio people were one of them got over excited and went running down the stairs celebrating, then back up again. He was too far over to my right for me to do anything about it, (he'd have got an expletive riddled earful combined with some hand signals), but I thought then that it wouldn't take much to set off some serious handbags if that happened in a more high profile game. Maybe the club need to have a quiet word with these radio sorts to make sure they don't let their professionalism spill over?
Quite possibly-here a quote from Rodgers about the boos from the crowd He said: "I didn't hear so much to be honest. I'll always be grateful to Watford. "They gave me a chance and I made a mistake when I left here. It's a wonderful club."