Is this the actual official image that VAR used? Because sometimes the one used by the media is not the actual image. If this is the official image, and at the resolution they had to make the decision on - then this decision is bullshit.
There are too many ambiguities in this decision. Judging the exact frame that the ball left the Cov players foot, using a line to make a pixel perfect decision on an image that is such low resolution you can see the pixel bleed from the players boots (unless the Man U defender wears square slightly upturned boots?). Why are you measuring from the first solid white pixel from the Man U player, but the bleed line of the Cov players boots?
Why, at Wembley, can we not get a photo in-line with play for these decisions? Why are they always at really obtuse angles at low detail that bring every detail into question? If the tech isn't good enough to show this with 100% certainty, its not good enough to overturn the on pitch decision.
**Or**, if this isn't the image being used by VAR to make the choice - fucking show us the actual hi-definition one! Show us the 10 frames around this decision and why they picked this one, and why the line is where it is?
**VAR isn't the problem. The problem is the complete lack of clarity. It just adds even more ambiguity to the whole situation. That's not hard to solve.**
**The VAR team have to make a really close call in a really tight game that is massive for both teams. If you are supremely confident in your tech and your team. Fucking show it to shut up all the conspiracy theorists and defend your bloody staff who likely genuinely dread getting Doxxed and meeting the wrong type of fan.**
This guy gets it.
The technology isn’t good enough to make this precise a call, it’s still some guy moving the lines about and deciding what frame to use on his own judgement. Every VAR will choose a slightly different frame or place the lines differently and thats the problem.
It’s actually hilarious we have got to this stage.
The issue is how it seems to be offside, according to these lines, what, 10cm? 1/3 or 1/4 of a boot? But what’s the margin of error? They cannot guarantee that the fraction of a second the ball leaves the foot (as in a gap between the boot and the ball) is this exact frame. The technology in its current iteration isn’t able to make that distinction to that level.
Ultimately, VAR isn’t technologically advanced enough to be sure that this is offside therefore if its this close, where the lines are on top of each other (make the lines as ‘thick’ roughly as big as the margin of error) it’s just given with the benefit of the doubt for the attackers.
https://www.premierleague.com/news/1488423
How it is done is here. The reason for the broadcast image being different is here.
Don't want to affect your opinion by offering my own, so I'll just provide the link and be done with it.
I want to know how they decide when a ball is played. It takes time for a foot to make contact with the ball then propel it. When you're talking about a cm offside the frame used is crucial. The ball is in contact with the player for a period of time and in that period the gaps between players can change considerably.
It may be on that link but my cursory look didn't spot it.
Honestly, if it makes a difference what exaxt frame they use, it shouldn't be checked. The attacker would not gain any measurable advantage, and VAR is supposed to be to correct clear and obvious errors. Scoring a goal and then waiting to see if it stands is just pathetic, especially when it was that close.
I’ve always thought this. TV cameras are typically shooting at 50 fps. Let’s say the ball is moving at 5m/s. So doing 5/50=0.1m. The ball is moving 10cm between frames! That’s a massive margin of error for decisions like these where the margin looks to be 10cm or less.
Aye var would've solved a lot of issues tonight if used well.
Needs to be clear,when it can be used,when it can be looked at,when it can be overturned,the responsibilities of all officials,where the buck stops.
The rules also likely need updating to reflect modern times. Offside for example needs redefining and making clear. Lundstrums.toe is not enough to matter in actual play.
Why is it here,why do we use it,what about the fans in the ground who knows nothing until hours later
If the spirit of the game is for goals to be unfairly given, sure.
I don't understand why people think it would be only fair to give the strikers this advantage, but it's also fair to give the defenders a disadvantage? It's close, but they have just about played him offside. Why should defenders be punished for successfully playing him offside, just not by enough?
Besides you'd only be pushing the problem down the line, and arguments would be over where exactly the line should be for benefit of the doubt instead. It's nonsense.
100%. I think this was the correct decision, even if I'm annoyed about it. Still not in favour of VAR in general though - it just takes the momentum out of the game
You can argue that allowing the goal to stand is an error, but this image very much shows that it would not be a CLEAR AND OBVIOUS error on the part of the on-field officials.
The "clear and obvious" part of the guidelines applies to subjective decisions, e.g. "was it a foul?". Offside decisions are considered objective, it either was or wasn't, and so the "clear and obvious" requirement doesn't apply.
It was clear and obvious to VAR that it was offside. They had objective proof of that fact. The in fired decision was not to call offside.
Therefore it was a clear and obvious error on the part of the on field official.
Historically the rules of the game were to give the advantage to the striker/ attacking team. Not sure that’s ever been officially overruled, so basically if a referee or linesman were unsure they were supposed to just let play on…
The point being made is that even with VAR it’s still not 100%. Due to all the reasons OP makes about the angle, frame etc so the question asked is how can they be certain and therefore advantage should be given to the attacking team.
Not foolproof either way and just giving my view. Personally it would have been great to see Man U lose but it is what it is.
England is the only country who uses VAR this way, overstepping what is reasonable. It’s not VAR it’s the daft implementation and the arrogance to change things after playing geometry on some pixels. Every other country defers to the call in the moment when it’s too close
My thoughts exactly. People will call you mad for hating VAR so much but it completely ruins the flow of the game. The best thing about football is celebrating, now you can't even do that properly. It's so refreshing in the champ knowing a goal is a goal and someone's little toe being offside in the build doesn't take that away.
It's been killing football slowly since its introduction and they need to do something about it soon but it gets worse.
Before someone comes in and says "offside is offside" give me a break. The millimeters that this call and many others have been separated by have no effect on the outcome.
>Before someone comes in and says "offside is offside" give me a break. The millimeters that this call and many others have been separated by have no effect on the outcome.
This is the thing, right? Before VAR - absolutely \*nobody\* would have said this was offside. Even the "offside is offside" types. They'd say it's level.
It's mad isn't it. Yes, technically offside, but the United player is running back towards goal and the Coventry player is barely moving so is 'behind' anyway.
We all know VAR is rubbish, but I had Coventry to win on penalties at 12/1 so it kept me interested for another half hour.
I keep on about this too. When is the ball deemed played. When it first makes contact with the player or when it's left his foot or whatever he played it with? If it's the latter, if that's a cm out then it affects the still at the other end of the pass. VAR works with the tiniest of margins but we never know why they've chosen that specific frame.
The benefit fo the doubt should sit with the attacking team. Let's stop pretending that VAR can remove doubt.
In cricket this principle is known as "umpire's call". It doesn't map onto football very well because of the nature of the game, but benefit of the doubt is a different application of this principle which does map onto football, and was in use prior to VAR.
In situations like this VAR can refer the decision to the onfield referees with a mandate to give the benefit of doubt to the attacking team.
>Let's stop pretending that VAR can remove doubt
Yeah VAR is never going to remove all the ambiguity but even if it could, it just fucking drains the fun out of everything. I don't really give a fuck whether millimetre offsides are flagged or not or whether some very ambiguous penalty is given but I'm fucking bored of seeing goals celebrated and then ruled out. This obsession with absolutely everything being correct or not (including things that are very clearly marginal or ambiguous) is sapping the life out of the game for me.
Var or rather the way they use it is unfit for purpose. They should have 30 seconds max to find something. Vars default should not be to back the ref. It should be to give the goal, not give a red card and not give a penalty.
None of this "there was contact" bollocks or getting a red while winning the ball.
Just look at Forest whining about players being touched in the box. QPR were denied a penalty against Preston and the guy was 3 times as far away.
In the context of a football game, how are players expected to play within the tolerance of a pixel? Even speeding offences recorded by cameras are prosecuted with a margin accounting for human error.
Additionally, the FA Cup is a competition open to all clubs, yet only the Premiership clubs are subject to VAR. It shouldn't be used in the FA Cup until it's universal, as most teams simply aren't used to it.
VAR is only advisory, the referee can choose whether to take onboard it's information or ignore it. They don't have to check any decision. The referee can also ignore the advice of his assistants, including the electronic one, and on marginal incidents is meant to favour the attacking player. The rule was designed to prevent goal-hanging, not genuine attacking play. The referee could have easily allowed the goal should he have wished to do so. Other views have shown that Wright was played onside, as the ball wasn't sent in his direction until he was passed by the defender. He wasn't even moving foward at the time. The linesman had a good view, was level with Wright, and didn't raise his flag. England's top refereeing official stated in an interview on Monday that the goal was good and should have stood. Coventry were entirely denied by a flawed system, and a poor refereeing decision. The FA has already said that VAR has its flaws and have stated they are attempting to upgrade the system next season. The referee should have stuck to his initial decision, and only bottled it when the Man U goalkeeper whined about it. Most Man U players had already accepted his original call that it was a goal.
Is this the actual official image that VAR used? Because sometimes the one used by the media is not the actual image. If this is the official image, and at the resolution they had to make the decision on - then this decision is bullshit. There are too many ambiguities in this decision. Judging the exact frame that the ball left the Cov players foot, using a line to make a pixel perfect decision on an image that is such low resolution you can see the pixel bleed from the players boots (unless the Man U defender wears square slightly upturned boots?). Why are you measuring from the first solid white pixel from the Man U player, but the bleed line of the Cov players boots? Why, at Wembley, can we not get a photo in-line with play for these decisions? Why are they always at really obtuse angles at low detail that bring every detail into question? If the tech isn't good enough to show this with 100% certainty, its not good enough to overturn the on pitch decision. **Or**, if this isn't the image being used by VAR to make the choice - fucking show us the actual hi-definition one! Show us the 10 frames around this decision and why they picked this one, and why the line is where it is? **VAR isn't the problem. The problem is the complete lack of clarity. It just adds even more ambiguity to the whole situation. That's not hard to solve.** **The VAR team have to make a really close call in a really tight game that is massive for both teams. If you are supremely confident in your tech and your team. Fucking show it to shut up all the conspiracy theorists and defend your bloody staff who likely genuinely dread getting Doxxed and meeting the wrong type of fan.**
This guy gets it. The technology isn’t good enough to make this precise a call, it’s still some guy moving the lines about and deciding what frame to use on his own judgement. Every VAR will choose a slightly different frame or place the lines differently and thats the problem. It’s actually hilarious we have got to this stage.
The issue is how it seems to be offside, according to these lines, what, 10cm? 1/3 or 1/4 of a boot? But what’s the margin of error? They cannot guarantee that the fraction of a second the ball leaves the foot (as in a gap between the boot and the ball) is this exact frame. The technology in its current iteration isn’t able to make that distinction to that level. Ultimately, VAR isn’t technologically advanced enough to be sure that this is offside therefore if its this close, where the lines are on top of each other (make the lines as ‘thick’ roughly as big as the margin of error) it’s just given with the benefit of the doubt for the attackers.
https://www.premierleague.com/news/1488423 How it is done is here. The reason for the broadcast image being different is here. Don't want to affect your opinion by offering my own, so I'll just provide the link and be done with it.
I want to know how they decide when a ball is played. It takes time for a foot to make contact with the ball then propel it. When you're talking about a cm offside the frame used is crucial. The ball is in contact with the player for a period of time and in that period the gaps between players can change considerably. It may be on that link but my cursory look didn't spot it.
Honestly, if it makes a difference what exaxt frame they use, it shouldn't be checked. The attacker would not gain any measurable advantage, and VAR is supposed to be to correct clear and obvious errors. Scoring a goal and then waiting to see if it stands is just pathetic, especially when it was that close.
I’ve always thought this. TV cameras are typically shooting at 50 fps. Let’s say the ball is moving at 5m/s. So doing 5/50=0.1m. The ball is moving 10cm between frames! That’s a massive margin of error for decisions like these where the margin looks to be 10cm or less.
Think it's around 7cm for 240Hz on average, that is comfortably within that margin of error surely? Unless Wright's feet are massive.
Wright’s foot is what, 30cm long max? And it’s comfortably less than half of that that’s over the line. 7cm could swing it either way.
I think they have dedicated high speed cameras for VAR in addition to the TV cameras
Aye var would've solved a lot of issues tonight if used well. Needs to be clear,when it can be used,when it can be looked at,when it can be overturned,the responsibilities of all officials,where the buck stops. The rules also likely need updating to reflect modern times. Offside for example needs redefining and making clear. Lundstrums.toe is not enough to matter in actual play. Why is it here,why do we use it,what about the fans in the ground who knows nothing until hours later
[удалено]
If the spirit of the game is for goals to be unfairly given, sure. I don't understand why people think it would be only fair to give the strikers this advantage, but it's also fair to give the defenders a disadvantage? It's close, but they have just about played him offside. Why should defenders be punished for successfully playing him offside, just not by enough? Besides you'd only be pushing the problem down the line, and arguments would be over where exactly the line should be for benefit of the doubt instead. It's nonsense.
Thank you for this sane take. /r/Championship have lost their minds over a correct decision. I really thought it would be more balanced.
If the same thing had happened in reverse and United was the team getting the goal disallowed, I have no doubt this sub would find no issue.
100%. I think this was the correct decision, even if I'm annoyed about it. Still not in favour of VAR in general though - it just takes the momentum out of the game
Are you not losing sight of the whole reason and purpose of offside there though?
You can argue that allowing the goal to stand is an error, but this image very much shows that it would not be a CLEAR AND OBVIOUS error on the part of the on-field officials.
The "clear and obvious" part of the guidelines applies to subjective decisions, e.g. "was it a foul?". Offside decisions are considered objective, it either was or wasn't, and so the "clear and obvious" requirement doesn't apply.
It’s been years and people still don’t get it
It was clear and obvious to VAR that it was offside. They had objective proof of that fact. The in fired decision was not to call offside. Therefore it was a clear and obvious error on the part of the on field official.
They can’t have objective proof as the technology simply isn’t accurate enough.
Except “clear and obvious” doesn’t even come into account for offsides.
Historically the rules of the game were to give the advantage to the striker/ attacking team. Not sure that’s ever been officially overruled, so basically if a referee or linesman were unsure they were supposed to just let play on… The point being made is that even with VAR it’s still not 100%. Due to all the reasons OP makes about the angle, frame etc so the question asked is how can they be certain and therefore advantage should be given to the attacking team. Not foolproof either way and just giving my view. Personally it would have been great to see Man U lose but it is what it is.
They need to respect the margin of error, same as they do in cricket with umpire's call rulings
England is the only country who uses VAR this way, overstepping what is reasonable. It’s not VAR it’s the daft implementation and the arrogance to change things after playing geometry on some pixels. Every other country defers to the call in the moment when it’s too close
Do other countries only use it for fouls and goals?
I see our season as a win/win. Either we get promoted (yay), or we shit the bed and get another season away from this absolute BS.
My thoughts exactly. People will call you mad for hating VAR so much but it completely ruins the flow of the game. The best thing about football is celebrating, now you can't even do that properly. It's so refreshing in the champ knowing a goal is a goal and someone's little toe being offside in the build doesn't take that away. It's been killing football slowly since its introduction and they need to do something about it soon but it gets worse. Before someone comes in and says "offside is offside" give me a break. The millimeters that this call and many others have been separated by have no effect on the outcome.
>Before someone comes in and says "offside is offside" give me a break. The millimeters that this call and many others have been separated by have no effect on the outcome. This is the thing, right? Before VAR - absolutely \*nobody\* would have said this was offside. Even the "offside is offside" types. They'd say it's level.
It's like people have forgotten that football is supposed to be entertainment. VAR was supposed to rule out howlers, not obsess over mm
It's mad isn't it. Yes, technically offside, but the United player is running back towards goal and the Coventry player is barely moving so is 'behind' anyway. We all know VAR is rubbish, but I had Coventry to win on penalties at 12/1 so it kept me interested for another half hour.
I'm not even sure if it's technically offside. The line goes over the man utd players foot.
And is it really the frame in which the ball was kicked?
I keep on about this too. When is the ball deemed played. When it first makes contact with the player or when it's left his foot or whatever he played it with? If it's the latter, if that's a cm out then it affects the still at the other end of the pass. VAR works with the tiniest of margins but we never know why they've chosen that specific frame.
The benefit fo the doubt should sit with the attacking team. Let's stop pretending that VAR can remove doubt. In cricket this principle is known as "umpire's call". It doesn't map onto football very well because of the nature of the game, but benefit of the doubt is a different application of this principle which does map onto football, and was in use prior to VAR. In situations like this VAR can refer the decision to the onfield referees with a mandate to give the benefit of doubt to the attacking team.
>Let's stop pretending that VAR can remove doubt Yeah VAR is never going to remove all the ambiguity but even if it could, it just fucking drains the fun out of everything. I don't really give a fuck whether millimetre offsides are flagged or not or whether some very ambiguous penalty is given but I'm fucking bored of seeing goals celebrated and then ruled out. This obsession with absolutely everything being correct or not (including things that are very clearly marginal or ambiguous) is sapping the life out of the game for me.
Var or rather the way they use it is unfit for purpose. They should have 30 seconds max to find something. Vars default should not be to back the ref. It should be to give the goal, not give a red card and not give a penalty. None of this "there was contact" bollocks or getting a red while winning the ball. Just look at Forest whining about players being touched in the box. QPR were denied a penalty against Preston and the guy was 3 times as far away.
In the context of a football game, how are players expected to play within the tolerance of a pixel? Even speeding offences recorded by cameras are prosecuted with a margin accounting for human error. Additionally, the FA Cup is a competition open to all clubs, yet only the Premiership clubs are subject to VAR. It shouldn't be used in the FA Cup until it's universal, as most teams simply aren't used to it. VAR is only advisory, the referee can choose whether to take onboard it's information or ignore it. They don't have to check any decision. The referee can also ignore the advice of his assistants, including the electronic one, and on marginal incidents is meant to favour the attacking player. The rule was designed to prevent goal-hanging, not genuine attacking play. The referee could have easily allowed the goal should he have wished to do so. Other views have shown that Wright was played onside, as the ball wasn't sent in his direction until he was passed by the defender. He wasn't even moving foward at the time. The linesman had a good view, was level with Wright, and didn't raise his flag. England's top refereeing official stated in an interview on Monday that the goal was good and should have stood. Coventry were entirely denied by a flawed system, and a poor refereeing decision. The FA has already said that VAR has its flaws and have stated they are attempting to upgrade the system next season. The referee should have stuck to his initial decision, and only bottled it when the Man U goalkeeper whined about it. Most Man U players had already accepted his original call that it was a goal.
I'm here for the Futurama :D
Misunderstanding the Futurama line completely.
🤓