EPL Everton v Pool

Wallop said:
And how can a camera tell 100% exactly when the original passer’s boot makes contact with the ball?
Click to expand...
...and, given that when striking a football your foot is actually in contact with the ball for a decent fraction of a second, should the millimetre-cam be analysed at the point where contact with the ball starts or finishes?
My vote has always been for using the technology but a 12 or 18inch buffer so that a player who to the naked eye is level is given onside, but those that are clearly off are given as such and cannot justifiably complain if it is tight
 
Camera should be filming at 50 frames per second minimum in the Uk (60 fps in the US).

Should be enough frames
 
horseman said:
it's a real shame that for you it's more about a personal dislike of a team and their fans rather something that is ruining our game.
Click to expand...

I’ll get over over it.

Just like the Red Shite will do when the numerous of 50/50 calls have gone their way.

JFT39
 
I never understand why they can’t just work from the positioning of the foot rather than any other part of the body.

To be offside because of your little finger is crazy.
 
Pillox said:
Camera should be filming at 50 frames per second minimum in the Uk (60 fps in the US).

Should be enough frames
Click to expand...

It isn't, there was actually a study done on this showing a considerable error rate.
 
Last edited:
mooro said:
...and, given that when striking a football your foot is actually in contact with the ball for a decent fraction of a second, should the millimetre-cam be analysed at the point where contact with the ball starts or finishes?
My vote has always been for using the technology but a 12 or 18inch buffer so that a player who to the naked eye is level is given onside, but those that are clearly off are given as such and cannot justifiably complain if it is tight
Click to expand...
But haven't you just moved the problem 12 or 18 inches if you do that? So a player scores and there is a VAR check. At the moment they check if he is level. Under your proposal they'd have to check if he was (say) 12 inches in front. But if he was a bit more than 12 inches (12.5?) then he would be offside, so you'd still have to 'measure'! And round we go again.
 
ZeroTheHero said:
But haven't you just moved the problem 12 or 18 inches if you do that? So a player scores and there is a VAR check. At the moment they check if he is level. Under your proposal they'd have to check if he was (say) 12 inches in front. But if he was a bit more than 12 inches (12.5?) then he would be offside, so you'd still have to 'measure'! And round we go again.
Click to expand...
The difference would be that currently being level to the naked eye (as a linesman has traditionally judged it) now runs the risk of being offside by a millimetre. By moving the line by 12inches would mean that that risk is removed but if the same happens with the new line you can't then complain because you have taken the gamble to go beyond level
 
Pillox said:
Camera should be filming at 50 frames per second minimum in the Uk (60 fps in the US).

Should be enough frames
Click to expand...
The VAR system is running at 50fps, but even at that frame rate the margin of error when the player and ball are travelling at speeds of over 10mph are greater than the accuracy measured.
var.jpg
 
They should just give the benefit of the doubt to the attacker, unless it’s a clear offside. Fairly simple really
 
HampshireYellow said:
They should just give the benefit of the doubt to the attacker, unless it’s a clear offside. Fairly simple really
Click to expand...
As used to be the case - and when you are watching from the stands or even less than up-to-the-minute TV coverage, you'd just go 'that was tight' and forget about it. The problem of course is that endless replays from multiple angles by the TV broadcasters have meant that the armchair viewer was better informed than the on-pitch officials. The managers (never mind the viewers) were watching that coverage and moaning.
I think SteMerritt's idea is the best one, and one I have suggested before. Each manager (or captain?) has two (or three) appeals. If they think a decision is wrong, they can ask for a replay. Appeal correctly and you retain the appeal and the decision is reversed. Appeal incorrectly and you lose the appeal. Once you have used all of your appeals, that's it. Exactly like cricket. The beauty of this is that the onus is on the manager to make the decision to review. If they get it wrong, it's their fault. If they have lost all of their reviews before there is a dodgy decision that it their fault. If they didn't appeal for a decision that was wrong, that is their fault. It takes the pressure off the refs to a large degree, and might go at least a small way to make managers think about blaming the refs for their own shortcomings.
Of course, it will also reduce the amount of VAR stoppages there are in a game - at present it can be pretty endless and saps some of the excitement out of the games.
 
I've said all along that for offside, VAR should draw the lines as it does, and if you can draw another full line between them without it overlapping the existing lines, then it is offside i.e. going back to the former "daylight" analogy.
If it does overlap, then it's so close that it goes with whatever the original decision was.
 
SteMerritt said:
You either bin it entirely, or follow Cricket's lead and have 2 'appeals' per side. Ref's call decides anything close.
Click to expand...
That's how it always was before VAR and should have remained so because at the end of the day they are there to officiate..They make decisions based on what they see and have never set out to make perceived errors.
i've said so many times if tv replays were blocked all this controversy and bullshi* would not exist..Var is a Tv circus and is not designed for the benefit of those in attendence who have never had, wanted or needed a replay...The circus that is tv need it to justify their pundits constant desire to prove why a goal or offside etc should/should not stand and justify their wages.
i am also a strong believer that if such a thing must be used then it should be at every single game not just there for the Elite Leagues, a decision perceived as a wrong one is just as important at Accrington as it is at Old Trafford as the same Laws apply. Yet bizarrely it is not used in every competition or on a level playing field as fa cup games have shown and it's not even used in some international competitions.
I said when it was coming in that the sooner it was sent to the scrap heap along with the sat dishes the better the "Whole" game would be and nothing since has changed my mind.
 
ZeroTheHero said:
As used to be the case - and when you are watching from the stands or even less than up-to-the-minute TV coverage, you'd just go 'that was tight' and forget about it. The problem of course is that endless replays from multiple angles by the TV broadcasters have meant that the armchair viewer was better informed than the on-pitch officials. The managers (never mind the viewers) were watching that coverage and moaning.
I think SteMerritt's idea is the best one, and one I have suggested before. Each manager (or captain?) has two (or three) appeals. If they think a decision is wrong, they can ask for a replay. Appeal correctly and you retain the appeal and the decision is reversed. Appeal incorrectly and you lose the appeal. Once you have used all of your appeals, that's it. Exactly like cricket. The beauty of this is that the onus is on the manager to make the decision to review. If they get it wrong, it's their fault. If they have lost all of their reviews before there is a dodgy decision that it their fault. If they didn't appeal for a decision that was wrong, that is their fault. It takes the pressure off the refs to a large degree, and might go at least a small way to make managers think about blaming the refs for their own shortcomings.
Of course, it will also reduce the amount of VAR stoppages there are in a game - at present it can be pretty endless and saps some of the excitement out of the games.
Click to expand...
The "Final" decision is still a humans and subjective and not needed if "Everyone" just accepted the Officials decision
 
horseman said:
That's how it always was before VAR and should have remained so because at the end of the day they are there to officiate..They make decisions based on what they see and have never set out to make perceived errors.
i've said so many times if tv replays were blocked all this controversy and bullshi* would not exist..Var is a Tv circus and is not designed for the benefit of those in attendence who have never had, wanted or needed a replay...The circus that is tv need it to justify their pundits constant desire to prove why a goal or offside etc should/should not stand and justify their wages.
i am also a strong believer that if such a thing must be used then it should be at every single game not just there for the Elite Leagues, a decision perceived as a wrong one is just as important at Accrington as it is at Old Trafford as the same Laws apply. Yet bizarrely it is not used in every competition or on a level playing field as fa cup games have shown and it's not even used in some international competitions.
I said when it was coming in that the sooner it was sent to the scrap heap along with the sat dishes the better the "Whole" game would be and nothing since has changed my mind.
Click to expand...
I think though that you can use the cricket analogy here. Ball tracking etc is not used in anything other than elite matches. And the replays ARE shown on TV. But it generates much less heat because it is up to the captains on the field to decide if they want to appeal - marginal decisions are always 'umpire's (referee's) call'.

I do agree with you that VAR is a horrible thing - I have never liked it - but whether you can now put the genie back in the bottle AND persuade the TV companies (the PL paymasters, after all!) to not show replays of contentious decision is something I very much doubt.
 
ZeroTheHero said:
I think though that you can use the cricket analogy here. Ball tracking etc is not used in anything other than elite matches. And the replays ARE shown on TV. But it generates much less heat because it is up to the captains on the field to decide if they want to appeal - marginal decisions are always 'umpire's (referee's) call'.

I do agree with you that VAR is a horrible thing - I have never liked it - but whether you can now put the genie back in the bottle AND persuade the TV companies (the PL paymasters, after all!) to not show replays of contentious decision is something I very much doubt.
Click to expand...
Dare i say Cricket was/ is more of a Gentlemans game, when a Batsman knew he'd nicked it and the Keeper appealed he walked not even waiting for the umpire i would wager that rarely happens now since the paywall got their hands on it.

I get your idea but it will still inevitably be down to "That Line" and the human that judges it. There have been no appeal status in football to date yet VAR is still seen to be wrong and would provide the same answer whether via an appeal or not.Nobody at Goodison was asking for offside when Henderson scored and that wasn't solely due to knowing every Goal will be checked.

The problem is that Managers and players were allowed to get away with berating a referee, getting in his face and if that had been dealt with properly we would not be in the mess we are now because everyone would just accept the decision which is how it should be.
 
ZeroTheHero said:
As used to be the case - and when you are watching from the stands or even less than up-to-the-minute TV coverage, you'd just go 'that was tight' and forget about it. The problem of course is that endless replays from multiple angles by the TV broadcasters have meant that the armchair viewer was better informed than the on-pitch officials. The managers (never mind the viewers) were watching that coverage and moaning.
I think SteMerritt's idea is the best one, and one I have suggested before. Each manager (or captain?) has two (or three) appeals. If they think a decision is wrong, they can ask for a replay. Appeal correctly and you retain the appeal and the decision is reversed. Appeal incorrectly and you lose the appeal. Once you have used all of your appeals, that's it. Exactly like cricket. The beauty of this is that the onus is on the manager to make the decision to review. If they get it wrong, it's their fault. If they have lost all of their reviews before there is a dodgy decision that it their fault. If they didn't appeal for a decision that was wrong, that is their fault. It takes the pressure off the refs to a large degree, and might go at least a small way to make managers think about blaming the refs for their own shortcomings.
Of course, it will also reduce the amount of VAR stoppages there are in a game - at present it can be pretty endless and saps some of the excitement out of the games.
Click to expand...

Rugby League in Australia (NRL) do 1 captain's challenge a game per team along them lines. It works well from when I watched as it doesn't cause that long of a delay unlike the regualr VAR visits currently.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

M
EPL Everton
Replies
13
Views
2K
OUFCGav
OUFCGav
Northstandboy
EPL Everton V Newcastle - cable tie
Replies
9
Views
2K
holdsteady
H
Ox4Eva
Millwall v Everton
Replies
4
Views
2K
horseman
H
Back
Top Bottom