VAR in Scottish Football

[gannonball]

1 minute ago, houston_bud said:

But the point I was agreeing with was saying that it's impossible to judge exactly when the ball leaves the foot of the player passing it. So the lines won't be 100% accurate. 

So spending the best part of 5 mins sometimes to do this, seems (at least to me) a bit daft.

It's not about giving the attacker the benefit of the doubt, it's about sticking with the onfield decision unless it is a 'clear and obvious' error. And getting on with the game.

Pretty sure offsides were exempt from that mindset though? Which is why offside called always go to VAR.

[Dons_1988]

5 minutes ago, gannonball said:

Pretty sure offsides were exempt from that mindset though? Which is why offside called always go to VAR.

They are but they shouldn’t be. We shouldn’t give into the ‘offside is offside’ virgins. 

[The Master]

1 hour ago, IrishBhoy said:

Even 70 yards scaled down its not like your following the lines to a vanishing point, over that distance it should be quite clear to the human eye that the lines are parallel with either the goal line or the half way line. 

You’re not taking into account the perspective. The camera isn’t looking straight down the middle of the two lines, which forces our perception of the vanishing point closer to the start of the lines. 

Think of it this way: imagine the camera is looking perfectly down the middle of the two lines. The vanishing point is then somewhere in the distance (beyond the stand on the far side). The camera can only move left to right (along the x-axis, but it can rotate on its own axis) and the vanishing point can only move up and down between the parallel lines (along the y-axis). 

Now imagine the camera and vanishing point are tied together. As you move the camera along the x-axis, it pulls the vanishing point closer. You also need to rotate the camera move in order to still see the lines. 

That’s more or less how our perception of where a vanishing point is works. 

Edited March 19, 2023 by The Master

[IrishBhoy]

7 minutes ago, The Master said:

You’re not taking into account the perspective. The camera isn’t looking straight down the middle of the two lines, which forces our perception of the vanishing point closer to the start of the lines. 

Think of it this way: imagine the camera is looking perfectly down the middle of the two lines. The vanishing point is then somewhere in the distance (beyond the stand on the far side). The camera can only move left to right (along the x-axis, but it can rotate on its own axis) and the vanishing point can only move up and down between the parallel lines (along the y-axis). 

Now imagine the camera and vanishing point are tied together. As you move the camera along the x-axis, it pulls the vanishing point closer. You also need to rotate the camera move in order to still see the lines. 

That’s more or less how our perception of where a vanishing point is works. 

 
 

I understand that, but even at the angle of this camera it would take much more than the width of a football pitch to see any convergence of the half way line and the ‘offside’ line, maybe if you took away the stand and continued the lines out to reach Harthill you would see it. If you stood perpendicular to a train track, the section directly in front of you would run as close to parallel that it wasn’t noticeable, but if you turned to look 100 yards away you would see the rails begin to meet gradually until the vanishing point. 
 

What a genuinely interesting debate this is, it’s an important issue and something I feel very strongly about, as I can tell you do too. 

[54_and_counting]

1 hour ago, houston_bud said:

But the point I was agreeing with was saying that it's impossible to judge exactly when the ball leaves the foot of the player passing it. So the lines won't be 100% accurate. 

So spending the best part of 5 mins sometimes to do this, seems (at least to me) a bit daft.

It's not about giving the attacker the benefit of the doubt, it's about sticking with the onfield decision unless it is a 'clear and obvious' error. And getting on with the game.

And if a ref misses a penalty foul by a millimetre or two, is that a clear and obvious error or simply something the ref will never be able to get 

But VAR would look at it as well

[The Master]

12 minutes ago, IrishBhoy said:

I understand that, but even at the angle of this camera it would take much more than the width of a football pitch to see any convergence of the half way line and the ‘offside’ line, maybe if you took away the stand and continued the lines out to reach Harthill you would see it. If you stood perpendicular to a train track, the section directly in front of you would run as close to parallel that it wasn’t noticeable, but if you turned to look 100 yards away you would see the rails begin to meet gradually until the vanishing point. 

But if you took a photo of those same train tracks, you would see a vanishing point. 

Photographs (and video) are a 2-dimensional projection of a 3-dimensional space. That brings vanishing points closer, which is then amplified when not looking directly down the parallel lines. 

[SJFCtheTeamForMe]

The debate online how the VAR line isn't straight really is something else. The margin for error for said line will be mathematically known like Hawkeye in tennis and be at a level where it's not worth thinking about. The only area of issue is the human placing the line. 

The level of paranoia around something like that could only come from football fans. Summed up by so many Rangers fans using the manually grass cut lines as irrefutable evidence the VAR is wrong. Peoples skepticism about VAR in general is resulting in nonsense like this. 

Edited March 19, 2023 by SJFCtheTeamForMe

[54_and_counting]

13 minutes ago, IrishBhoy said:

 
 

I understand that, but even at the angle of this camera it would take much more than the width of a football pitch to see any convergence of the half way line and the ‘offside’ line, maybe if you took away the stand and continued the lines out to reach Harthill you would see it. If you stood perpendicular to a train track, the section directly in front of you would run as close to parallel that it wasn’t noticeable, but if you turned to look 100 yards away you would see the rails begin to meet gradually until the vanishing point. 
 

What a genuinely interesting debate this is, it’s an important issue and something I feel very strongly about, as I can tell you do too. 

We have to trust the linea are calibrated pre match properly, if so then they should be correct no matter the view we get

The best way to describe it is think of watching tennis on the telly, from oir perspective there is less space for the ball in the top end of the court than the bottom end, and the space between the 2 court lines at the side seems way smaller at the top than the bottom

[54_and_counting]

3 minutes ago, SJFCtheTeamForMe said:

The debate online how the VAR line isn't straight really is something else. The margin for error for said line will be mathematically known like Hawkeye in tennis and be at a level where it's not worth thinking about. The only area of issue is the human placing the line. 

The level of paranoia around something like that could only come from football fans. Summed up by so many Rangers fans using the manually grass cut lines as irrefutable evidence the VAR is wrong. Peoples skepticism about VAR in general is resulting in nonsense like this. 

Its amazing you single out the rangers fans when every news outlet today is only focusing on the rangers 3rd goal lol

[SJFCtheTeamForMe]

3 minutes ago, 54_and_counting said:

Its amazing you single out the rangers fans when every news outlet today is only focusing on the rangers 3rd goal lol

That's the bit you picked up on?

Of course it was. I just have an agenda against Rangers and their fans like everyone else in Scottish football apparently does remember. 

[54_and_counting]

13 minutes ago, SJFCtheTeamForMe said:

That's the bit you picked up on?

Of course it was. I just have an agenda against Rangers and their fans like everyone else in Scottish football apparently does remember. 

Do you, i wouldnt know, i just think its funny how rangers fans have an issue with motherwell first goal, Motherwell fans, players, manager etc have an issue with rangers 3rd goal, yet you specifically mention rangers fans when talking about the decision discussions, 

Imo both were onside, or both were off

[Crùbag]

4 hours ago, 54_and_counting said:

Imagine being sectarian because your post was rightly called out as fucking ridiculous

Fucking clown

Lay off the bevy.

[Crùbag]

4 hours ago, Dons_1988 said:

This just isn’t true. If you’re waiting for the right individual to come along to make VAR work fine then I have some bad news. 

So, the technology is the problem?

[Dons_1988]

57 minutes ago, Crùbag said:

So, the technology is the problem?

Yes, applying a flawed technology with limited capacity for accuracy to enforce rules that were never designed to be black and white, is guaranteed to be shite. 

[Jacky1990]

14 hours ago, Dons_1988 said:

Yes, applying a flawed technology with limited capacity for accuracy to enforce rules that were never designed to be black and white, is guaranteed to be shite. 

I'm fairly pro VAR in concept but this is the most succinct take I've heard on why it doesnt seem to be working as well as it should in theory.

Fair play.

[Crùbag]

16 hours ago, Dons_1988 said:

Yes, applying a flawed technology with limited capacity for accuracy to enforce rules that were never designed to be black and white, is guaranteed to be shite. 

Flawed? It's a bunch of cameras!

Some rules are black and white, i.e. Curtas Main diving for that pen against Dundee Utd.

[AJF]

3 minutes ago, Crùbag said:

Flawed? It's a bunch of cameras!

Some rules are black and white, i.e. Curtas Main diving for that pen against Dundee Utd.

It’s absolutely flawed. You only need a fleeting experience of it being applied here to understand that.

Also, the example that you use is the opposite of black and white - it’s totally subjective as to whether the referee has deemed someone has dived or not.

[Crùbag]

2 minutes ago, AJF said:

It’s absolutely flawed. You only need a fleeting experience of it being applied here to understand that.

Also, the example that you use is the opposite of black and white - it’s totally subjective as to whether the referee has deemed someone has dived or not.

The cameras appear to work. What is flawed about them?

The only flaws(biases, say some) I can see are human.

Curtis Main patently dived. He could get a part in a Steven Seagal film ffs. Ditto that cheat that plays for Rangers. No-one falls to the ground like that in real life.

[Loonytoons]

1 hour ago, Crùbag said:

The cameras appear to work. What is flawed about them?

The only flaws(biases, say some) I can see are human.

 

Frames per second.

[AJF]

1 hour ago, Crùbag said:

The cameras appear to work. What is flawed about them?

The only flaws(biases, say some) I can see are human.

Curtis Main patently dived. He could get a part in a Steven Seagal film ffs. Ditto that cheat that plays for Rangers. No-one falls to the ground like that in real life.

If you just want to ignore that the technology is not just specific to the actual hardware being used, then there are still instances of flaws that can be called upon.

Firstly, the low frame rate of said cameras mean there is a variance from the point at which a ball is kicked meaning it won’t be 100% accurate for “black and white” decisions such as offside.

Or instances where the system fails and can’t be used (the Rangers v Aberdeen extra time fiasco). I think there was also an issue with the positioning of one of the cameras at a Motherwell v Celtic match earlier in the season.

But I don’t think it can be overlooked that the “technology” is more than just the cameras themselves. It is the use of the knowledge and information it provides which ultimately involves human element which cannot be infallible.