Not sure about you mate but most people’s heads don’t look like that
Spurs and VAR
- Thread starter Archibald&Crooks
- Start date
Shadydan
Well-Known Member
- Jul 7, 2012
- 38,247
- 104,143
Clearly haven't looked at Dier's arm on that image then, what do you think Popeye is a real life person or something? lol
Perhaps it's not the best idea trying to pick faults in a blurred image...
Exactly mate can’t be making offside calls on such low quality images
spursfan77
Well-Known Member
- Aug 13, 2005
- 46,684
- 104,964
I think what will make it even worse is that when I get back in the stadium the twats who moan for 90 minutes every game haven’t moved seats. If they haven’t I might cry.
Shadydan
Well-Known Member
- Jul 7, 2012
- 38,247
- 104,143
lol that's fair enough, VAR is terrible in that respect.
CoopsieDeadpool
Well-Known Member
- Jun 8, 2012
- 18,257
- 70,419
spursfan77
Well-Known Member
- Aug 13, 2005
- 46,684
- 104,964
Good point. I had never posted on here during a game while at the stadium until the last season we were in there. I was just so bored of it all. The awful internet connection in the old stadium really was a positive.
The people who sit behind me Dougal are terrible though. They make the match thread tolerable. There will be fights if they are there. So many people are fed up with them.
Everlasting Seconds
Well-Known Member
- Jan 9, 2014
- 14,914
- 26,616
I don't like VAR. It needs to (and probably will) be replaced by wholesale upgrades soon. I don't agree with those who say that it's good but misused. It isn't good in the first place.
theShiznit
Well-Known Member
- Jul 26, 2004
- 17,900
- 23,959
What's Ted Danson got to do with it?
chrissivad
Staff
- May 20, 2005
- 51,646
- 58,072
- Staff
- #1,555
Not sure we can say they would both would be called the same.
They are told not to raise their flags unless it's a clear call and let VAR pick up on tight calls. So not flagging, doesn't mean they wouldn't have flagged with no VAR
IamSpurtacus
Well-Known Member
- Jun 5, 2019
- 1,487
- 7,011
Couple of ways to improve VAR for offsides and more generally
1. Only use the measure of the arm for goals scored with...the arm...99.9% of goals are scored with feet - why should the arm be the measure of where a player is offside?
2. Use the attacking players back foot and the defensive players front foot as the line. Before VAR, the recommendation was "Clear daylight" to give attackers the benefit of doubt and account for human error. Given the scope for inaccuracy in the current system, going back to a similar approach would remove the silly marginal decisions we saw today and in the last two seasons
3. Change the wording of the question of decision review from "was it a clear and obvious error" to "Would you disagree if the decision was reversed?" (or similar type words).
By changing the lens, you remove the inherent criticism of the ref's competence, which is implied by the loaded term in the first phrase. This deters over turning decisions because the decision becomes a judgement about the ref's ability because he's made a "Clear and obvious error".
By posing the question in a different way (the second phrase) you focus the thought process to remove the judgement about the ref's competence, and more about whether the decision is right.
There are plenty of marginal decisions where, if i ask my self the second question (would i argue if the decision was reversed...), i get to the "right" decision.
As an example, take sissoko's handball in the CL final. Was the decision by the ref a "clear and obvious error?". No. It took multiple viewings to determine the "handball" came off his chest...and so it stood. The ref made the best decision he could based on what he saw. It wasn't a "clear and obvious error". But that doesn't make the decision "right".
Would i argue if the decision was reversed (i.e. the pen was overturned)? No - and not simply because i'm a biased spurs fan.
I don't think any player or fan would have argued that was a pen, or would have disagreed if it had been over turned. Most fans would have been - rightly - livid if the pen was given against the (my scouse supporting mate, felt it was a ridiculous decision.
There are plenty of decisions where "soft" pens would stand because, in reality, you'd argue against them being reversed.
1. Only use the measure of the arm for goals scored with...the arm...99.9% of goals are scored with feet - why should the arm be the measure of where a player is offside?
2. Use the attacking players back foot and the defensive players front foot as the line. Before VAR, the recommendation was "Clear daylight" to give attackers the benefit of doubt and account for human error. Given the scope for inaccuracy in the current system, going back to a similar approach would remove the silly marginal decisions we saw today and in the last two seasons
3. Change the wording of the question of decision review from "was it a clear and obvious error" to "Would you disagree if the decision was reversed?" (or similar type words).
By changing the lens, you remove the inherent criticism of the ref's competence, which is implied by the loaded term in the first phrase. This deters over turning decisions because the decision becomes a judgement about the ref's ability because he's made a "Clear and obvious error".
By posing the question in a different way (the second phrase) you focus the thought process to remove the judgement about the ref's competence, and more about whether the decision is right.
There are plenty of marginal decisions where, if i ask my self the second question (would i argue if the decision was reversed...), i get to the "right" decision.
As an example, take sissoko's handball in the CL final. Was the decision by the ref a "clear and obvious error?". No. It took multiple viewings to determine the "handball" came off his chest...and so it stood. The ref made the best decision he could based on what he saw. It wasn't a "clear and obvious error". But that doesn't make the decision "right".
Would i argue if the decision was reversed (i.e. the pen was overturned)? No - and not simply because i'm a biased spurs fan.
I don't think any player or fan would have argued that was a pen, or would have disagreed if it had been over turned. Most fans would have been - rightly - livid if the pen was given against the (my scouse supporting mate, felt it was a ridiculous decision.
There are plenty of decisions where "soft" pens would stand because, in reality, you'd argue against them being reversed.
theShiznit
Well-Known Member
- Jul 26, 2004
- 17,900
- 23,959
Make the lines a certain thickness.
If there is no space between the lines it's level/onside.
If there is no space between the lines it's level/onside.
spud
Well-Known Member
- Sep 2, 2003
- 5,850
- 8,794
It's impossible to say whether or not it's onside because the player has to be offside when the ball is kicked. You can't even see the ball in this image, so how can you possibly know when it was kicked?
In these circumstances, and with the difference between forward and defender being virtually non-existent, surely the benefit of doubt should go with the attacking player? If the situation was reversed and a Leeds goal had been disallowed, I would say the same thing: the goal should stand.
You want to improve VAR? Fire every single PL official. The problem with VAR is the refs.
