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.
No understood. But surely while not perfect if the evidence suggested Hawkeye was more likely to get it right than the umpire (which seems likely to be the case), why would you not use Hawkeye's judgement each time?
@DevC said:
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.
Hawkeye is predictive technology so very different to reviewing match footage. In cricket it removes the howler but isn't accurate enough to be definitive. The umpires decision is given some value.
Ever wondered why the Hawkeye line calls in tennis are all shown within Hawkeye and not with actual recorded footage?
It's because you'd see a difference
Sorry not sure I understand (cricket is not really my game). Is the feeling that the umpire is more likely to be right than the technology - if so I understand why on marginal calls, the umpire is used to decide. Seems a bit counter-intuitive.
(Sorry I know nothing to do with football, just interested.)
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.
No understood. But surely while not perfect if the evidence suggested Hawkeye was more likely to get it right than the umpire (which seems likely to be the case), why would you not use Hawkeye's judgement each time?
For the reasons @Right_in_the_Middle gives. It's a predictive technology - an indication of what it thinks would have happened not what did (although based on events up to the point in time under review). Because it is not perfect in its predictive capabilities, it cannot be relied upon to give a definitive view on the close ones. Thus, the people implementing its use, who we can assume have a better understanding of the probabilities than us, determining that "umpire's call" is the right way to decide these marginal calls.
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.
Video is an appalling medium for even judging offsides due to the frame rate. This is why the goal line technology doesn't rely on it. A ball kicked at 100mph (hello Beckham) will travel 44.7 metres in a second, with 25 frames per second video (which is what they're using for VAR) that's travelling 179cm per frame.
@DevC said:
Sorry not sure I understand (cricket is not really my game). Is the feeling that the umpire is more likely to be right than the technology - if so I understand why on marginal calls, the umpire is used to decide. Seems a bit counter-intuitive.
(Sorry I know nothing to do with football, just interested.)
If it's not certain they stick with the on field umpire as they are still "the authority" on the game
I think the answer with Hawkeye and cricket is because it is the fudge that could be agreed upon. I doubt that there is any exact rationale behind it (I mean, there has been lots of research undertaken at MIT on the topic, but I’m sure the decision on how it is implemented is political rather than scientific.)
It literally isn't. As explained above, the umpire's call verdict on LBW decisions is due to the fact the hawkeye technology is being used to predict the future path of the ball if it had continued on it's current trajectory. Other uses of technology which are giving a definitive view of an incident that has happened such as hotspot or ultraedge return a verdict of out or not out, there is no umpires call middle ground.
@croider but even though Hawkeye is a prediction and is not completely accurate, it is still almost certainly a better predictor of whether the ball was going to hit the stumps than the umpire. The only thing that might give the umpire an advantage is knowing the individual conditions on that particular day, but I’d still back the computer nearly all the time.
The decision to go with the umpire’s call approach is one of expediency rather than evidence - the ‘area of uncertainty’ used for umpire’s call has increased and decreased over the years not because of changes in technology but because of changes in attitudes towards Hawkeye. Which is fine.
I find it fascinating how the Hawkeye technology has changed umpire decision making around LBWs, how the types of deliveries which we expect to go on to hit the stumps has changed on the basis of the better information we now have.
Would you get in a self-driving Uber with a statistical accident rate of say 10% or a Uber driven by a human knowing that the accident rate of people is 20%?
If the former you can feel smug in your good sense but lacking in your understanding of how other members of your species think and feel.
@drcongo isn't it still a fair argument that video technology is better than the lino in judging marginal offside decisions?
How can the lino be looking at the attacking playing who passes the ball, the attacking player who receives the ball and the defensive line all at the same time? Sometimes it simply isn't possible.
Not sure it has anything to do with how far the ball travels in 1 frame when kicked at 100mph, since in judging offside you are evaluating the positions of different players who are all moving at very roughly the same speed (might be in different directions, I accept).
I still hate VAR though. I'm certain there is as much enjoyment in moaning at/about the ref as there is in the actual result sometimes - especially if we don't win. Glad we don't have to have it at AP.
@Twizz I thought someone was going to make that point, and I was going to explain it in my original post but had to run out to pick the kids up from school. So, in quite a few VAR offside calls I've seen so far, it's been less about whether the player was offside when the initial pass was played, but whether someone was offside at the point that the ball is possibly touched by another player on the way. When that's the case, a ball moving six feet between video frames means that the moment that the extra touch is made has to be guessed. As soon as you're guessing, then you might as well leave it up to the lino and let the game flow.
Personally, I preferred it when the linos were given the instruction "if in doubt, go with the attacker" - we got fast, flowing football with more shots and (maybe?) more goals. Every change to the offside rules since can do one.
Also on the video frame rate thing, in the women's world cup we had the farcical situation where the VAR judges were judging a hand ball in the box where the entire travel of the ball, from foot to body part and then deflection, happened between frames. We got the tedious spectacle on live TV of someone flicking backwards and forwards between two frames of video trying to guess whether the ball had hit the hand for five minutes. A penalty was awarded with zero evidence that it had hit the hand. The new hand ball rules can do one too, they only exist to try to justify the existence of VAR.
We don’t be getting those newfangled Uber chariots down these parts @bookertease . We make do with a brake driven by Dartmoor pony and are grateful for it. Mind thee if Uber crash on at least one in ten trips I prefer our ways.
@drcongo I confess to not having watched (on TV or live) many games involving VAR, only seen highlights. In the situation you have described, surely the benefit of any doubt would go with the attacking team and the goal stands? Not really sure I can remember an example of the VAR official guessing that a player has touched the ball and the goal being disallowed.
As I said before, if we must have VAR, then it surely should only be involved to rule on the clear and obvious errors. Difficulty is that certain things may be obvious to some but not others, I suppose.
@Wendoverman said:
Why do well-off pensioners get a discount?
Because we've less time left to enjoy it.......it's a twisted joke in it's own way.
Everyone realises I put this in as a joke to derail the growing tedium of the VAR debate, don't they? Rather than an attack on Brexit voting Dunkirk veterans being spongers?
Not normally one for conspiracy theories (well apart from...) but does anyone else thing that the powers that be are deliberately sabotaging the VAR concept?
I was never a fan of the idea as I’m not sure football is particularly suited to it, but if you tried to make it as unworkable and unpopular as possible they seem to be shearing to the perfect blueprint.
But then I remembered that the EPL & FA are involved so it was bound to be implemented incompetently (the surprise to me is that the puppet masters - Sky - haven’t banged enough heads together to make it vaguely be seen to work)
That was definitely a handball by Arnold-Alexander, an "unnatural" hand position job. Then they went and scored straight after.
What should have happened was that the goal was ruled out. However, maybe it was then not a pen as a City player had handled it before hand, so Liverpool free kick!
It couldn't be a "playing advantage" job, and the two handballs didn't even out, like some say.
Could you imagine ruling out a goal at Anfield for an incident 30seconds earlier? That would be too brave for VAR.
I even wonder about whether Arnold Alexander handling (which is unarguable, whatever the ruling on positioning) should have meant their goal was ruled out, as it was quite soon after. You're not meant to benefit from a handball In a goal.
What a carry on.
City still feel aggrieved, which they would have done in the old system, but VAR is meant to cut such things out.
The huge delays are the biggest problem, however I hate it for many reasons.
Even if var is applied fairly football is always a subjective game. That’s why we like it. Without var we have to trust the referee who 90% of the time do their honest best. In a way var is more cynical as a committee can choose, it’s more open to corruption than a ref making a split second decision.
Comments
No understood. But surely while not perfect if the evidence suggested Hawkeye was more likely to get it right than the umpire (which seems likely to be the case), why would you not use Hawkeye's judgement each time?
Cos we love umpires and their idiosyncrasies. Thank you for coomin’.
Hear hear @Malone and, believe me, some of us do.
Hawkeye is predictive technology so very different to reviewing match footage. In cricket it removes the howler but isn't accurate enough to be definitive. The umpires decision is given some value.
Ever wondered why the Hawkeye line calls in tennis are all shown within Hawkeye and not with actual recorded footage?
It's because you'd see a difference
Sorry not sure I understand (cricket is not really my game). Is the feeling that the umpire is more likely to be right than the technology - if so I understand why on marginal calls, the umpire is used to decide. Seems a bit counter-intuitive.
(Sorry I know nothing to do with football, just interested.)
I'm looking forward to the game on Saturday.
Because they may not see out the season!
For the reasons @Right_in_the_Middle gives. It's a predictive technology - an indication of what it thinks would have happened not what did (although based on events up to the point in time under review). Because it is not perfect in its predictive capabilities, it cannot be relied upon to give a definitive view on the close ones. Thus, the people implementing its use, who we can assume have a better understanding of the probabilities than us, determining that "umpire's call" is the right way to decide these marginal calls.
It wasn't a question.
Have you completely lost the plot?
Video is an appalling medium for even judging offsides due to the frame rate. This is why the goal line technology doesn't rely on it. A ball kicked at 100mph (hello Beckham) will travel 44.7 metres in a second, with 25 frames per second video (which is what they're using for VAR) that's travelling 179cm per frame.
If it's not certain they stick with the on field umpire as they are still "the authority" on the game
I think the answer with Hawkeye and cricket is because it is the fudge that could be agreed upon. I doubt that there is any exact rationale behind it (I mean, there has been lots of research undertaken at MIT on the topic, but I’m sure the decision on how it is implemented is political rather than scientific.)
It literally isn't. As explained above, the umpire's call verdict on LBW decisions is due to the fact the hawkeye technology is being used to predict the future path of the ball if it had continued on it's current trajectory. Other uses of technology which are giving a definitive view of an incident that has happened such as hotspot or ultraedge return a verdict of out or not out, there is no umpires call middle ground.
Because we've less time left to enjoy it.......it's a twisted joke in it's own way.
@croider but even though Hawkeye is a prediction and is not completely accurate, it is still almost certainly a better predictor of whether the ball was going to hit the stumps than the umpire. The only thing that might give the umpire an advantage is knowing the individual conditions on that particular day, but I’d still back the computer nearly all the time.
The decision to go with the umpire’s call approach is one of expediency rather than evidence - the ‘area of uncertainty’ used for umpire’s call has increased and decreased over the years not because of changes in technology but because of changes in attitudes towards Hawkeye. Which is fine.
I find it fascinating how the Hawkeye technology has changed umpire decision making around LBWs, how the types of deliveries which we expect to go on to hit the stumps has changed on the basis of the better information we now have.
Another question for you @DevC.
Would you get in a self-driving Uber with a statistical accident rate of say 10% or a Uber driven by a human knowing that the accident rate of people is 20%?
If the former you can feel smug in your good sense but lacking in your understanding of how other members of your species think and feel.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/mashable.com/article/autonomous-vehicles-fear-perception-aaa.amp
@drcongo isn't it still a fair argument that video technology is better than the lino in judging marginal offside decisions?
How can the lino be looking at the attacking playing who passes the ball, the attacking player who receives the ball and the defensive line all at the same time? Sometimes it simply isn't possible.
Not sure it has anything to do with how far the ball travels in 1 frame when kicked at 100mph, since in judging offside you are evaluating the positions of different players who are all moving at very roughly the same speed (might be in different directions, I accept).
I still hate VAR though. I'm certain there is as much enjoyment in moaning at/about the ref as there is in the actual result sometimes - especially if we don't win. Glad we don't have to have it at AP.
@bookertease the obvious answer to that question is neither.
@Twizz I thought someone was going to make that point, and I was going to explain it in my original post but had to run out to pick the kids up from school. So, in quite a few VAR offside calls I've seen so far, it's been less about whether the player was offside when the initial pass was played, but whether someone was offside at the point that the ball is possibly touched by another player on the way. When that's the case, a ball moving six feet between video frames means that the moment that the extra touch is made has to be guessed. As soon as you're guessing, then you might as well leave it up to the lino and let the game flow.
Personally, I preferred it when the linos were given the instruction "if in doubt, go with the attacker" - we got fast, flowing football with more shots and (maybe?) more goals. Every change to the offside rules since can do one.
Also on the video frame rate thing, in the women's world cup we had the farcical situation where the VAR judges were judging a hand ball in the box where the entire travel of the ball, from foot to body part and then deflection, happened between frames. We got the tedious spectacle on live TV of someone flicking backwards and forwards between two frames of video trying to guess whether the ball had hit the hand for five minutes. A penalty was awarded with zero evidence that it had hit the hand. The new hand ball rules can do one too, they only exist to try to justify the existence of VAR.
We don’t be getting those newfangled Uber chariots down these parts @bookertease . We make do with a brake driven by Dartmoor pony and are grateful for it. Mind thee if Uber crash on at least one in ten trips I prefer our ways.
You will @DevC, you will...
(But correct answer goes to @chris)
@drcongo I confess to not having watched (on TV or live) many games involving VAR, only seen highlights. In the situation you have described, surely the benefit of any doubt would go with the attacking team and the goal stands? Not really sure I can remember an example of the VAR official guessing that a player has touched the ball and the goal being disallowed.
As I said before, if we must have VAR, then it surely should only be involved to rule on the clear and obvious errors. Difficulty is that certain things may be obvious to some but not others, I suppose.
Everyone realises I put this in as a joke to derail the growing tedium of the VAR debate, don't they? Rather than an attack on Brexit voting Dunkirk veterans being spongers?
Did everyone watch Spurs v Sheff Utd on match of the day?
Superb VAR for the disallowed goal. 3 and a half minutes to get to that decision. Really enhancing the game
Everyone?
I was there. It was the first time I’ve really heard the tide turn against VAR at a premier league game.
Spurs fans booed throughout the decision and many sang along with VAR is fucking shit’ chants after the goal was ruled out in their favour.
Not normally one for conspiracy theories (well apart from...) but does anyone else thing that the powers that be are deliberately sabotaging the VAR concept?
I was never a fan of the idea as I’m not sure football is particularly suited to it, but if you tried to make it as unworkable and unpopular as possible they seem to be shearing to the perfect blueprint.
But then I remembered that the EPL & FA are involved so it was bound to be implemented incompetently (the surprise to me is that the puppet masters - Sky - haven’t banged enough heads together to make it vaguely be seen to work)
Today was a minefield of "what ifs".
That was definitely a handball by Arnold-Alexander, an "unnatural" hand position job. Then they went and scored straight after.
What should have happened was that the goal was ruled out. However, maybe it was then not a pen as a City player had handled it before hand, so Liverpool free kick!
It couldn't be a "playing advantage" job, and the two handballs didn't even out, like some say.
Could you imagine ruling out a goal at Anfield for an incident 30seconds earlier? That would be too brave for VAR.
I even wonder about whether Arnold Alexander handling (which is unarguable, whatever the ruling on positioning) should have meant their goal was ruled out, as it was quite soon after. You're not meant to benefit from a handball In a goal.
What a carry on.
City still feel aggrieved, which they would have done in the old system, but VAR is meant to cut such things out.
...and the last bit there @Malone is the biggie. It's a lot of hassle for something that doesn't help
The huge delays are the biggest problem, however I hate it for many reasons.
Even if var is applied fairly football is always a subjective game. That’s why we like it. Without var we have to trust the referee who 90% of the time do their honest best. In a way var is more cynical as a committee can choose, it’s more open to corruption than a ref making a split second decision.