VAR in Scottish Football

[ArabFC]

I actually kinda enjoy it now when VAR does stuff like last night at Spurs.

A big 'f**k You' to any fan who ever thought this was a good idea.

I'm sure there are Spurs fans out there who will still support it, but they're already dead inside.

[Ric]

27 minutes ago, VincentGuerin said:

The problem with offside is really caused by VAR. If VAR didn't exist, we'd just have what we used to have, which was officials doing their best and generally doing a reasonable enough job. You don't seem to accept what the point of the offside rule is in football.

Sorry but that is nonsense, and such a bad faith argument. Your premise seems to be that everything was fine before VAR, which is fundamentally untrue. Offside has been contentious ever since its inception, admittedly not helped by continually changing the rules as to where and when the player is offside. I have issues with thinking officials "doing their best" and being "reasonable" is the bench mark. That's, at best, embracing ambiguity and at worst celebrating incompetence.

 

27 minutes ago, VincentGuerin said:

I've mentioned this in previous discussion with you, but you seem to have a very black/white view of how football should work in terms of the rules. But football is a fast-paced contact sport where there will always be ambiguity about certain things. I understand (but do not share) your view that the rules should just be applied and that's that. But that leads to an absolutely shite sport.

Rules are black and white, it really is as simple as that, they have been black and white long before VAR came about. If a ball is over the line, it's over the line, there is no argument, it's binary. If a player is offside they are offside, it's binary. The whistle determines when the game is in play and not, that again is binary. The only reason ambiguity was part of the game was the technology wasn't available to provide that level of precision.

What is it about binary decisions that you are so against? Like you, I understand the viewpoint you are coming from, but to me the idea that we should rely on fallible individuals to make decisions which can be made quicker and far far more accurately by technology seems strange. It's opening the system up to abuse, and we've seen that abuse writ large over the years.

The I agree with you on the speed, it does need to be improved, but that is not VAR, that is human response.

 

27 minutes ago, VincentGuerin said:

Let's turn your question round on you. Where do you draw the line? Should we be VARing every throw-in decision? Afterall, if we don't, then we don't have a fair sport. Should we be VARing every goal-kick/corner decision? If not then where is the fairness?

Doing this, I think even you would agree, would lead to a completely unwatchable spectacle. 'I just want the rules to apply' as an attitude would completely ruin the sport. You need to accept ambiguity. The laws of the game exist to make it watchable, not as a scientific exercise.

Sorry but that's just hyperbole. Not a single person is advocating for VAR to be monitoring for 90 minutes and interjecting at every single possible infringement, certainly not me, but your argument seems to be that if we can't be 100% certainty for every decision, then we should be a random number % certain, based on the referee's position, clarity of mind, personal judgement and any influence from the crowd.

27 minutes ago, VincentGuerin said:

Your comparison with the old passback rule is flawed for two reasons. Firstly, the rule was introduced to speed the game up, while VAR necessarily slows it down. Secondly, while goalkeepers hated it, the passback rule was quickly very popular as pretty much everyone agreed it improved the sport. You cannot say the same about VAR.

I explicitly said it was not a like for like, I just looked for a big change made to the game and that was probably the most evident. I'm guessing you weren't around in 1992, because trust me, it was not initially universally accepted in the way you suggest.

As for saying VAR has not in any way improved sport, to coin a phrase from The Dude, "That's just like, your opinion, man". There is simply not the data out there to make such a claim, other than if you subjectivised it and said "I don't think that applies to VAR" not that "you cannot say that about.."

Edited October 27, 2022 by Ric

[VincentGuerin]

5 minutes ago, Ric said:

Sorry but that is nonsense, and such a bad faith argument.

1) That's, at best, embracing ambiguity and at worst celebrating incompetence.

2)Rules are black and white, it really is as simple as that, they have been black and white long before VAR came about. If a ball is over the line, it's over the line, there is no argument, it's binary. If a player is offside they are offside, it's binary. The whistle determines when the game is in play and not, that again is binary. The only reason ambiguity was part of the game was the technology wasn't available to provide that level of precision.

3)Sorry but that's just hyperbole. Not a single person is advocating for VAR to be monitoring for 90 minutes and interjecting at every single possible infringement, certainly not me, but your argument seems to be that if we can't be 100% certainty for every decision, then we should be a random number % certain, based on the referee's position, clarity of mind, personal judgement and any influence from the crowd.

4) I explicitly said it was not a like for like, I just looked for a big change made to the game and that was probably the most evident. I'm guessing you weren't around in 1992, because trust me, it was not initially universally accepted in the way you suggest.

Nothing bad faith about it. I think you are slightly obsessed with the idea of 'fairness', yet haven't considered the implications of your pursuit of perfection and are inconsistent in its application.

1) I'm openly embracing ambiguity. Football is a fucking game.

You seem to completely contradict yourself in part 2 and 3. If the rules are black and white, then, as I asked you before, why not VAR throw-in or goal-kick decisions? Why are you so set that we have to analyse offside to the nth degree, but insist that I'm being hyperbolic by asking why you don't apply that apparently essential fairness to the rest of the game. What's the point in having your puritanical fairness viewpoint over only certain rules? Your case falls apart here.

4) I absolutely was around and watching football in 1992. Goalkeepers and old fitba dinosaurs (the day's Willie Millers) were against the new rule, but Italia 90 and Denmark's displays at Euro 92 had demonstrated to most people that it was a good idea. If your contention is that it was an unpopular move, I simply disagree with you. You're either misremembering or making it up to strengthen your argument.

 

 

[Steve McQueen]

1 hour ago, CoF said:

Yep, I posted something similar on here the other week. I don’t think the way it’s applied now is true to the purpose of the offside law. ‘Clear and obvious’ and something about gaining an advantage should be applied. 

Speaking of clear and obvious, if anyone can explain what’s going on here that would be great cheers. Is Kane meant to be ahead of the ball? 
 

*edit - aye he is. 

 

Clear and obvious is only meant for subjective calls, offside is not subjective.

Think this is offside but it's so close & also was played onto the Sporting player 1st.

[Ric]

2 minutes ago, VincentGuerin said:

Nothing bad faith about it. I think you are slightly obsessed with the idea of 'fairness', yet haven't considered the implications of your pursuit of perfection and are inconsistent in its application.

You don't address the point, you claim VAR is the source of the problem with offside, yet offside was clearly contentious before VAR. That is the epitome of bad faith arguments, this isn't an insult towards your viewpoint, it's claiming your viewpoint is being supported by an unsupportable claim.

2 minutes ago, VincentGuerin said:

1) I'm openly embracing ambiguity. Football is a fucking game.

You seem to completely contradict yourself in part 2 and 3. If the rules are black and white, then, as I asked you before, why not VAR throw-in or goal-kick decisions? Why are you so set that we have to analyse offside to the nth degree, but insist that I'm being hyperbolic by asking why you don't apply that apparently essential fairness to the rest of the game. What's the point in having your puritanical fairness viewpoint over only certain rules? Your case falls apart here.

We are talking the current implementation of VAR not some extended super version. If you are happy relying on utterly fallible individuals who have shown in the past to demonstrate bias rather than an entirely independent set of electronic sensors then that's clearly where we disagree.

If you wish to make the argument, or not, that VAR should be extended to cover everything then that's not a discussion about the current implementation of VAR. There is no contradiction in my position here. There is no requirement to monitor every incident on the pitch.

It's like asking me, since the substitutions moved from 3 to 5, if you support that then you must support 7, 9 or 11 substitutes. It's simply not cogent to make that assumption.

I've already said I am not looking to replace the referee completely, there are clearly reasons we need a human as a focal point. However, if the technology was capable of providing 100% accuracy with no loss of speed? I'd have to say I wouldn't be automatically against the proposal. It's a big fucking ask though.

You have asked me if I am happy with VAR adjudicating every incident, let me flip that around, if VAR was proven to be 100% successful at determining breaches of the rules, and it did so with minimal interruption, would you still be against it? Is it an absolutist stance against VAR, or just that you don't like the idea?

 

2 minutes ago, VincentGuerin said:

If your contention is that it was an unpopular move, I simply disagree with you. You're either misremembering or making it up to strengthen your argument.

I think we'll both need to look through the archives, because I distinctly remember within the "yer da" support there was a Luddite attitude towards it. Admittedly this was in the very very early days of the Internet, and certainly no social media, so you had to take your information from the fans around you and the normally bullshit Record or Sun.

I'm happy to put it to one side to be honest, it's not a huge weight in the argument.

 

 

We've swapped replies a few times, I think it's probably fair to summarise our disagreements as..

You: Find the speed loss a big problem, dislike calls being precise and are willing to allow referees enough leeway to make incorrect decisions even if they get the right decision more often than not. Scrutiny of these decisions shouldn't happen in real time, only after when they cannot affect the game.

Me: I equally find the speed an issue, you won't get me debating that,  I think it can improve though. I am unwilling to allow officials the freedom of unfettered decision making purely from the evidence that they are open to abuse and mistake, like all humans are. Scrutiny for an incorrect call should be made at the time, when it can influence the game, not hours later on Sportscene.

Assuming I've not incorrectly attributed our general opinions, how do we square the circle? We could carry on discussing the pros and cons, but that just keeps us in the same position, where is the middle ground where we can meet?

[VincentGuerin]

5 minutes ago, Ric said:

You don't address the point, you claim VAR is the source of the problem with offside, yet offside was clearly contentious before VAR. That is the epitome of bad faith arguments, this isn't an insult towards your viewpoint, it's claiming your viewpoint is being supported by an unsupportable claim.

We are talking the current implementation of VAR not some extended super version. If you are happy relying on utterly fallible individuals who have shown in the past to demonstrate bias rather than an entirely independent set of electronic sensors then that's clearly where we disagree.

If you wish to make the argument, or not, that VAR should be extended to cover everything then that's not a discussion about the current implementation of VAR. There is no contradiction in my position here. There is no requirement to monitor every incident on the pitch.

It's like asking me, since the substitutions moved from 3 to 5, if you support that then you must support 7, 9 or 11 substitutes. It's simply not cogent to make that assumption.

I've already said I am not looking to replace the referee completely, there are clearly reasons we need a human as a focal point. However, if the technology was capable of providing 100% accuracy with no loss of speed? I'd have to say I wouldn't be automatically against the proposal. It's a big fucking ask though.

You have asked me if I am happy with VAR adjudicating every incident, let me flip that around, if VAR was proven to be 100% successful at determining breaches of the rules, and it did so with minimal interruption, would you still be against it? Is it an absolutist stance against VAR, or just that you don't like the idea?

 

I think we'll both need to look through the archives, because I distinctly remember within the "yer da" support there was a Luddite attitude towards it. Admittedly this was in the very very early days of the Internet, and certainly no social media, so you had to take your information from the fans around you and the normally bullshit Record or Sun.

I'm happy to put it to one side to be honest, it's not a huge weight in the argument.

 

 

We've swapped replies a few times, I think it's probably fair to summarise our disagreements as..

You: Find the speed loss a big problem, dislike calls being precise and are willing to allow referees enough leeway to make incorrect decisions even if they get the right decision more often than not. Scrutiny of these decisions shouldn't happen in real time, only after when they cannot affect the game.

Me: I equally find the speed an issue, you won't get me debating that,  I think it can improve though. I am unwilling to allow officials the freedom of unfettered decision making purely from the evidence that they are open to abuse and mistake, like all humans are. Scrutiny for an incorrect call should be made at the time, when it can influence the game, not hours later on Sportscene.

Assuming I've not incorrectly attributed our general opinions, how do we square the circle? We could carry on discussing the pros and cons, but that just keeps us in the same position, where is the middle ground where we can meet?

Honestly, that's enough Ric for me for a few months.

[CoF]

1 minute ago, Steve McQueen said:

Clear and obvious is only meant for subjective calls, offside is not subjective.

Think this is offside but it's so close & also was played onto the Sporting player 1st.

Oh, I know. I’m suggesting clear and obvious should be introduced to offside decisions. I know it’s a non-subjective binary thing - a player is either onside or offside and that can be proved with technology and geometry. I’m just not sure the toenail calls which are invisible to the naked eye and even with lines are barely noticeable can exist alongside the spirit of why the rule exists in the first place. 

[Ric]

1 minute ago, VincentGuerin said:

Honestly, that's enough Ric for me for a few months.

I mean fine, although you were the one that initially replied to my point.

I would have thought you'd at least have a stab at the last paragraph, or perhaps you just didn't bother reading the post. Either way... </shrug>

[Doctor Manhattan]

41 minutes ago, VincentGuerin said:

Honestly, that's enough Ric for me for a few months.

I've just read this whole fucking page. Where's my closure! 

[Lurkst]

5 hours ago, CoF said:

Oh, I know. I’m suggesting clear and obvious should be introduced to offside decisions. I know it’s a non-subjective binary thing - a player is either onside or offside and that can be proved with technology and geometry. I’m just not sure the toenail calls which are invisible to the naked eye and even with lines are barely noticeable can exist alongside the spirit of why the rule exists in the first place. 

Agree with this totally, unfortunately when VAR gets involved in offside calls a line has to be drawn somewhere (pardon the pun). If the screen shows the player's kneecap is offside then the VAR has to give it. I don't know how that can be got around TBH 

 

[Busta Nut]

8 hours ago, VincentGuerin said:

 

I honestly couldn't give a f**k if someone's foot is partially offside. I'd be perfectly happy with the offside rule to basically be 'is it really obvious or not?'.  Because that's what the rule is for. It was never meant to be like this, but it's become this way because of cry-baby coaches and fans, and the creeping influence of tv.

 

I get ye and agree

I am not sure what line is supposed to be what in the top one but regards to any of the lines I'd happily agree these guys are all on side.


 

 

Edited October 27, 2022 by Busta Nut

[ropy]

If the fans of the team that scored are videoing themselves then it should be given as offside.

[eez-eh]

The pro-VAR gimps always forget that there’s a substantial margin for error with these offside calls, considering there’s no way the VAR official can be sure they’ve paused the video at the exact right frame.

With the speed players move at it could easily be the difference between offside and no offside. Hence why spending several minutes to reach the conclusion that the attacker’s toenail was offside is a load of horseshit.

[Thenorthernlight]

9 hours ago, craigkillie said:

 

 

 

The Video Assistant Referee is a ***.

 

 

FIFY 

[SJFCtheTeamForMe]

1 hour ago, eez-eh said:

The pro-VAR gimps always forget that there’s a substantial margin for error with these offside calls, considering there’s no way the VAR official can be sure they’ve paused the video at the exact right frame.

With the speed players move at it could easily be the difference between offside and no offside. Hence why spending several minutes to reach the conclusion that the attacker’s toenail was offside is a load of horseshit.

When the video is likely to 50+ frames per second the margin for error you mention will be negligible and the difference between many of those frames are potentially unnoticeable to the naked eye. 

Edited October 27, 2022 by SJFCtheTeamForMe

[CoF]

25 minutes ago, SJFCtheTeamForMe said:

When the video is likely to 50+ frames per second the margin for error you mention will be negligible and the difference between many of those frames are potentially unnoticeable to the naked eye. 

I’m not convinced. Top flight footballers can cover close to 10 meters in a second, so there’s 20cm between each frame if they’re running full pelt. Even half of that is a huge margin when we’re looking at those mad toenail calls. Now try matching that with the exact moment the ball has left the other players foot. 

[AJF]

Do pro-VAR people enjoy watching football more now than they did prior to its introduction?

It would be a resounding no from me. I understand players, management and clubs themselves being pro-VAR as ultimately they don’t want decisions to impact their job, but f**k me, football is a sport that is supposed to entertain people and VAR is diminishing that product.

As others have said, who really cares if someone is marginally offside? Why do we need to review every single contentious decision? I’d even go to the extent of saying it’s probably a good thing that your team is on the end of a few bad decisions a season. It’s entertaining. Football fans love to moan so a shite call lets them do that and ultimately they loved the sport for all its flaws before VAR came along.

[10menwent2mow]

7 minutes ago, AJF said:

Do pro-VAR people enjoy watching football more now than they did prior to its introduction?

It would be a resounding no from me. I understand players, management and clubs themselves being pro-VAR as ultimately they don’t want decisions to impact their job, but f**k me, football is a sport that is supposed to entertain people and VAR is diminishing that product.

As others have said, who really cares if someone is marginally offside? Why do we need to review every single contentious decision? I’d even go to the extent of saying it’s probably a good thing that your team is on the end of a few bad decisions a season. It’s entertaining. Football fans love to moan so a shite call lets them do that and ultimately they loved the sport for all its flaws before VAR came along.

This is the thing though, even those that are pro VAR, fans, players, managers, are still whining about it.  All it's done is given them a different cloud to yell at. Find me a manager or player that's been on the end of a contentious VAR decision that's just turned round and accepted it and gone 

'you know what, the VAR is right and I'm glad we've got it so it comes to the correct decision. Never mind this one, at least we can be safe in the knowledge the correct decision was reached and when something similar happens we will get the correct decision made in our favour. It's worth some decisions going against us because at least the correct decision is being made.'

[Dunning1874]

I do understand the argument for VAR for offsides in the first place considering that 'is someone offside or not' is an objective binary fact, unlike so many refereeing decisions which are subjective, but this robotic view of things completely misses the point of the rule in the first place.

Offside exists to stop forwards gaining an unfair advantage by standing about 10 yards beyond the opposition defence. A forward is not gaining an unfair advantage having their shoulder and nothing else ahead of the last defender when the ball is played. Penalising that shows no understanding of the spirit of the rule.

The ideal solution would be to just bin VAR and not use it, but if we must have it the offside rule has to be changed to be weighted far more in favour of attackers. They're only offside if their whole body is beyond the last defender. That still stops some poacher hanging about two yards behind the defence and forcing every defence to sit ridiculously deep, but avoids penalising attackers for making perfectly good runs.

[Ric]

Loving the hate my comments are getting.