If at the tail end of the season it came down to a VAR decision to decide if Norwich or Man United went down...on which side do we think VAR would fall?
I have to say I am enlightened and surprised by this conversation. Thanks to all.
In my perfect world all refereeing decisions would be as right as possible such that the football match was a contest between the 22 players with half time pundits (if they float your boat) and the crowd talking about team tactics and moments of player skills and mistakes not refereeing decisions.
I do recognise of course that the technology and time doesn't make that possible and by its nature there will always be subjective decisions.
I don't understand frankly @Twizz why in principle (and ignoring the time delay aspects) where decisions are subjective, you would prefer the snap judgement of a referee with one view of the action, often from afar and sometimes obscured rather than the more considered if imperfect decision based on video views of what actually happened. Having said that I don't understand Cricket's umpire call system where as I understand it on really close LBW calls where say the ball was just clipping the stumps, they go with the umpires first impression guess of whether or not the ball would have hit rather than technologies best estimate of reality.
its a strange world. But each to their own I suppose.
Believe it or not, this is not me having a go, but I genuinely believe your view is shaped by your emotional detachment caused by hardly ever going to a game. I think you've lost touch of the immediacy of the emotional highs and lows you go through watching your team play. It's probably not surprising then that you are so easily able to discount that whole side of the argument.
@DevC said:
Having said that I don't understand Cricket's umpire call system where as I understand it on really close LBW calls where say the ball was just clipping the stumps, they go with the umpires first impression guess of whether or not the ball would have hit rather than technologies best estimate of reality.
It's pretty simple. The Hawkeye technology estimates the path of the cricket ball and therefore has a known margin of error. Tight calls therefore go back to the on field umpire.
The technology being used isn't 100% accurate and has been a major reason why Indian cricketers have refused to have it involved in many of their games.
I'd like to get hold of VAR, coat it with shards of ebola-infected broken glass and ram it up its inventor's back passage. And that of everyone who thinks it's a good idea.
@eric_plant said:
Believe it or not, this is not me having a go, but I genuinely believe your view is shaped by your emotional detachment caused by hardly ever going to a game. I think you've lost touch of the immediacy of the emotional highs and lows you go through watching your team play. It's probably not surprising then that you are so easily able to discount that whole side of the argument.
I would go a stage further and say the full VAR debate going in here and on the wider media is split along the same lines.
@eric_plant said:
Believe it or not, this is not me having a go, but I genuinely believe your view is shaped by your emotional detachment caused by hardly ever going to a game. I think you've lost touch of the immediacy of the emotional highs and lows you go through watching your team play. It's probably not surprising then that you are so easily able to discount that whole side of the argument.
I would go a stage further and say the full VAR debate going in here and on the wider media is split along the same lines.
@LDF said:
I'd like to get hold of VAR, coat it with shards of ebola-infected broken glass and ram it up its inventor's back passage. And that of everyone who thinks it's a good idea.
@eric_plant said:
Believe it or not, this is not me having a go, but I genuinely believe your view is shaped by your emotional detachment caused by hardly ever going to a game. I think you've lost touch of the immediacy of the emotional highs and lows you go through watching your team play. It's probably not surprising then that you are so easily able to discount that whole side of the argument.
There seem to be two arguments here, though Eric.
There is the time delay ruins the moment argument, which I think is where you are coming from. I genuinely understand where you are coming from with that.
My judgement is that getting decisions right is worth the delay (and that the VAR suspense means you get a double adrenaline rush anyway) but I fully understand and respect why you might come to a different view.
What I didn't expect was that some people would (assuming I have understood them correctly) prefer not to get better decisions even if they could be made instantly as they see occasional refereeing errors as enhancing the football experience. I don't agree with that one.
It's pretty simple. The Hawkeye technology estimates the path of the cricket ball and therefore has a known margin of error. Tight calls therefore go back to the on field umpire.
The technology being used isn't 100% accurate and has been a major reason why Indian cricketers have refused to have it involved in many of their games.
I know this isn't directly related to football, but just to follow up on the point. I accept technology isn't perfect and it will sometimes make mistakes. But surely it is more likely to be accurate than some poor bugger standing 8 yards away all day trying to judge where a ball travelling at 100 miles per hour is going to hit. And if Hawkeye is more likely to be right than the umpire, why on marginal decisions go with the less likely to be right method. That strikes me as nuts.
I seem to recall John Peel explaining his love for vinyl over CD. He was told vinyl was full of crackle and hiss and his response was life is full of crackle and hiss.
(CDs....remember them?) Life is nuts @DevC
VAR is the equivalent of those new build estates where everything is spotless and all the houses look exactly the same. Just really really creepy, and no character whatsoever.
As a practical example, think back to the greatest moment we've experienced as fans, when Roy Essandoh rose to nod home in the last minute at Filbert St.
Remember how you reacted in that moment, how it made you feel? All of you remember exactly where you were, who you were with and what you did.
Now imagine if 5 seconds into that the referee had indicated that he wanted someone to review the tv replay of it for a minute or so.
I genuinely can't believe that anyone in their right mind would accept that as an improvement to the game.
@eric_plant said:
As a practical example, think back to the greatest moment we've experienced as fans, when Roy Essandoh rose to nod home in the last minute at Filbert St.
Remember how you reacted in that moment, how it made you feel? All of you remember exactly where you were, who you were with and what you did.
Now imagine if 5 seconds into that the referee had indicated that he wanted someone to review the tv replay of it for a minute or so.
I genuinely can't believe that anyone in their right mind would accept that as an improvement to the game.
There's not a delay for every goal though is there?
That goal didn't have even the remotest contention about it.
It's pretty simple. The Hawkeye technology estimates the path of the cricket ball and therefore has a known margin of error. Tight calls therefore go back to the on field umpire.
The technology being used isn't 100% accurate and has been a major reason why Indian cricketers have refused to have it involved in many of their games.
I know this isn't directly related to football, but just to follow up on the point. I accept technology isn't perfect and it will sometimes make mistakes. But surely it is more likely to be accurate than some poor bugger standing 8 yards away all day trying to judge where a ball travelling at 100 miles per hour is going to hit. And if Hawkeye is more likely to be right than the umpire, why on marginal decisions go with the less likely to be right method. That strikes me as nuts.
For the very good reason that the technology is there to provide certainty, or as near as damn it. Where the technology provides an answer within the known margin of error it is by definition not better or more reliable than the judgement of the umpire and thus should not be relied on to overturn the initial decision. This seems a logical use of technology.
This is, of course, not particularly relevant to the football question, since these are questions of fact, upon which video technology seems already to be a substantial asset - offside/ goal-line, etc. - rather than for use in subjective questions such as the judgement of intent, upon which it is of course much less useful.
In the past few years, rugby's referees, and the IRB, have moved increasingly towards the most objective possible interpretation of laws so as to minimise the need to make judgements of intent. This allows video technology to be used more. It is working rather well, I think, now that everyone is understanding their responsibility to do or not do certain things. The football equivalent is the handball interpretation in the Champions League. If I have correctly understood that it is to be adjudged an offence every time the ball hits a player's hand/arm regardless of the circumstances, this is exactly the sort of rule that is easily susceptible to accurate VAR. It is grossly and irrationally unfair but does address the problem that I think other posters have identified about the rules of football and their interpretation not tending to be ones that lend themselves very well to VAR. If I have indeed understood the rule correctly, I anticipate it will be changed anon but it is presumably a reflection of the fact that UEFA recognises it needs to do something to make the rules clearer.
@eric_plant said:
As a practical example, think back to the greatest moment we've experienced as fans, when Roy Essandoh rose to nod home in the last minute at Filbert St.
Remember how you reacted in that moment, how it made you feel? All of you remember exactly where you were, who you were with and what you did.
Now imagine if 5 seconds into that the referee had indicated that he wanted someone to review the tv replay of it for a minute or so.
I genuinely can't believe that anyone in their right mind would accept that as an improvement to the game.
There's not a delay for every goal though is there?
That goal didn't have even the remotest contention about it.
you've missed the point in rather spectacular fashion
Apart from long range howitzers, direct free kicks and moves where the opposition don't get anywhere near the ball - any goal is likely to be reviewed. The foul doesn't even need to have affected the move to be given remember, and that's a hell of a lot of pushing / pulling that goes on all the time, it's part of the game.
@eric_plant said:
As a practical example, think back to the greatest moment we've experienced as fans, when Roy Essandoh rose to nod home in the last minute at Filbert St.
Remember how you reacted in that moment, how it made you feel? All of you remember exactly where you were, who you were with and what you did.
Now imagine if 5 seconds into that the referee had indicated that he wanted someone to review the tv replay of it for a minute or so.
I genuinely can't believe that anyone in their right mind would accept that as an improvement to the game.
There's not a delay for every goal though is there?
That goal didn't have even the remotest contention about it.
you've missed the point in rather spectacular fashion
How do you react when something goes to VAR and it proves there was an error, out of interest?
@eric_plant said:
As a practical example, think back to the greatest moment we've experienced as fans, when Roy Essandoh rose to nod home in the last minute at Filbert St.
Remember how you reacted in that moment, how it made you feel? All of you remember exactly where you were, who you were with and what you did.
Now imagine if 5 seconds into that the referee had indicated that he wanted someone to review the tv replay of it for a minute or so.
I genuinely can't believe that anyone in their right mind would accept that as an improvement to the game.
There's not a delay for every goal though is there?
That goal didn't have even the remotest contention about it.
you've missed the point in rather spectacular fashion
How do you react when something goes to VAR and it proves there was an error, out of interest?
Not directed at me but looks like I'm on the similar "side" of the fence
The same as any football fan I expect, delighted if it's for me, angry if it's against. That's the same as referees in the main part, football fans don't really care of its right or wrong, just if it's for or against them.
For the very good reason that the technology is there to provide certainty, or as near as damn it. Where the technology provides an answer within the known margin of error it is by definition not better or more reliable than the judgement of the umpire and thus should not be relied on to overturn the initial decision. This seems a logical use of technology.
I genuinely don't know the answer to this, I presume tests have been done.
If it was shown that on marginal calls Hawkeye was right 90% of the time and the umpire 60%, surely it would make more sense to rely on Hawkeye even if not 100% right than the umpire.
For the very good reason that the technology is there to provide certainty, or as near as damn it. Where the technology provides an answer within the known margin of error it is by definition not better or more reliable than the judgement of the umpire and thus should not be relied on to overturn the initial decision. This seems a logical use of technology.
I genuinely don't know the answer to this, I presume tests have been done.
If it was shown that on marginal calls Hawkeye was right 90% of the time and the umpire 60%, surely it would make more sense to rely on Hawkeye even if not 100% right than the umpire.
It's not a question of being right some amount of the time and wrong on others, it's a question of how likely it is to be right on that specific occasion. The judgement has been made that the technology is not sufficiently accurate on those "umpire's calls" as to warrant overturning the original decision.
Comments
@Twizz exactly and that's what I thought the game was getting.
I agree with @Twizz on this also.
I do wonder if Dev would be happier simulating a save of Football Manager rather than watching real football.
If at the tail end of the season it came down to a VAR decision to decide if Norwich or Man United went down...on which side do we think VAR would fall?
I have to say I am enlightened and surprised by this conversation. Thanks to all.
In my perfect world all refereeing decisions would be as right as possible such that the football match was a contest between the 22 players with half time pundits (if they float your boat) and the crowd talking about team tactics and moments of player skills and mistakes not refereeing decisions.
I do recognise of course that the technology and time doesn't make that possible and by its nature there will always be subjective decisions.
I don't understand frankly @Twizz why in principle (and ignoring the time delay aspects) where decisions are subjective, you would prefer the snap judgement of a referee with one view of the action, often from afar and sometimes obscured rather than the more considered if imperfect decision based on video views of what actually happened. Having said that I don't understand Cricket's umpire call system where as I understand it on really close LBW calls where say the ball was just clipping the stumps, they go with the umpires first impression guess of whether or not the ball would have hit rather than technologies best estimate of reality.
its a strange world. But each to their own I suppose.
Believe it or not, this is not me having a go, but I genuinely believe your view is shaped by your emotional detachment caused by hardly ever going to a game. I think you've lost touch of the immediacy of the emotional highs and lows you go through watching your team play. It's probably not surprising then that you are so easily able to discount that whole side of the argument.
It's pretty simple. The Hawkeye technology estimates the path of the cricket ball and therefore has a known margin of error. Tight calls therefore go back to the on field umpire.
The technology being used isn't 100% accurate and has been a major reason why Indian cricketers have refused to have it involved in many of their games.
I'd like to get hold of VAR, coat it with shards of ebola-infected broken glass and ram it up its inventor's back passage. And that of everyone who thinks it's a good idea.
I would go a stage further and say the full VAR debate going in here and on the wider media is split along the same lines.
Science versus Art
Emotion versus Fact
@DevC never involved emotion in any of his views
It's not fact though, is it? It usually still boils down to opinion.
POTD @LDF
There seem to be two arguments here, though Eric.
There is the time delay ruins the moment argument, which I think is where you are coming from. I genuinely understand where you are coming from with that.
My judgement is that getting decisions right is worth the delay (and that the VAR suspense means you get a double adrenaline rush anyway) but I fully understand and respect why you might come to a different view.
What I didn't expect was that some people would (assuming I have understood them correctly) prefer not to get better decisions even if they could be made instantly as they see occasional refereeing errors as enhancing the football experience. I don't agree with that one.
I know this isn't directly related to football, but just to follow up on the point. I accept technology isn't perfect and it will sometimes make mistakes. But surely it is more likely to be accurate than some poor bugger standing 8 yards away all day trying to judge where a ball travelling at 100 miles per hour is going to hit. And if Hawkeye is more likely to be right than the umpire, why on marginal decisions go with the less likely to be right method. That strikes me as nuts.
I seem to recall John Peel explaining his love for vinyl over CD. He was told vinyl was full of crackle and hiss and his response was life is full of crackle and hiss.
(CDs....remember them?) Life is nuts @DevC
VAR is the equivalent of those new build estates where everything is spotless and all the houses look exactly the same. Just really really creepy, and no character whatsoever.
As a practical example, think back to the greatest moment we've experienced as fans, when Roy Essandoh rose to nod home in the last minute at Filbert St.
Remember how you reacted in that moment, how it made you feel? All of you remember exactly where you were, who you were with and what you did.
Now imagine if 5 seconds into that the referee had indicated that he wanted someone to review the tv replay of it for a minute or so.
I genuinely can't believe that anyone in their right mind would accept that as an improvement to the game.
"double adrenaline rush"
Couldn't be further from the truth, rather than a double rush, it's just two damp squibs. That's the problem (well one of them)
There's not a delay for every goal though is there?
That goal didn't have even the remotest contention about it.
For the very good reason that the technology is there to provide certainty, or as near as damn it. Where the technology provides an answer within the known margin of error it is by definition not better or more reliable than the judgement of the umpire and thus should not be relied on to overturn the initial decision. This seems a logical use of technology.
This is, of course, not particularly relevant to the football question, since these are questions of fact, upon which video technology seems already to be a substantial asset - offside/ goal-line, etc. - rather than for use in subjective questions such as the judgement of intent, upon which it is of course much less useful.
In the past few years, rugby's referees, and the IRB, have moved increasingly towards the most objective possible interpretation of laws so as to minimise the need to make judgements of intent. This allows video technology to be used more. It is working rather well, I think, now that everyone is understanding their responsibility to do or not do certain things. The football equivalent is the handball interpretation in the Champions League. If I have correctly understood that it is to be adjudged an offence every time the ball hits a player's hand/arm regardless of the circumstances, this is exactly the sort of rule that is easily susceptible to accurate VAR. It is grossly and irrationally unfair but does address the problem that I think other posters have identified about the rules of football and their interpretation not tending to be ones that lend themselves very well to VAR. If I have indeed understood the rule correctly, I anticipate it will be changed anon but it is presumably a reflection of the fact that UEFA recognises it needs to do something to make the rules clearer.
you've missed the point in rather spectacular fashion
Apart from long range howitzers, direct free kicks and moves where the opposition don't get anywhere near the ball - any goal is likely to be reviewed. The foul doesn't even need to have affected the move to be given remember, and that's a hell of a lot of pushing / pulling that goes on all the time, it's part of the game.
How do you react when something goes to VAR and it proves there was an error, out of interest?
Not directed at me but looks like I'm on the similar "side" of the fence
The same as any football fan I expect, delighted if it's for me, angry if it's against. That's the same as referees in the main part, football fans don't really care of its right or wrong, just if it's for or against them.
Has anyone seen my will to live? It seems to have gone missing.
Is it true that Lionel Ritchie once played live at Adams Park?
Why do well-off pensioners get a discount?
I genuinely don't know the answer to this, I presume tests have been done.
If it was shown that on marginal calls Hawkeye was right 90% of the time and the umpire 60%, surely it would make more sense to rely on Hawkeye even if not 100% right than the umpire.
"If the square on the hypotenuse equals the sum of the square on the other two sides, why is a mouse when it spins?"
I watched him on tv, then he'd gone before I'd even set off for the game!
True story.
It's not a question of being right some amount of the time and wrong on others, it's a question of how likely it is to be right on that specific occasion. The judgement has been made that the technology is not sufficiently accurate on those "umpire's calls" as to warrant overturning the original decision.
If anything,they should pay more.