You are here: Home > Message Board > Football Talk > VAR this weekend
March 28 2024 7.45pm

VAR this weekend

Previous Topic | Next Topic


Page 12 of 12 << First< 8 9 10 11 12

 

View CrazyBadger's Profile CrazyBadger Flag Ware 15 Feb 23 5.49pm Send a Private Message to CrazyBadger Add CrazyBadger as a friend


We don't need a challenge system - it's still based on a flawed technology, or at least one that needs refining.

 


"It was a Team effort, I guess it took all players working together to lose this one"

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
View SW19 CPFC's Profile SW19 CPFC Flag Addiscombe West 15 Feb 23 5.50pm Send a Private Message to SW19 CPFC Add SW19 CPFC as a friend

Originally posted by CrazyBadger

I think you've both arguing for, and against VAR at once there - and I totally agree !

VAR will be good for football, in it's evolved state. Right now it's not fit for purpose.
Take it away, get it right, then redeploy it properly. Don't employ a half baked, untested system on your Platinum product, test it out, iron out the kinks somewhere else first.

When the Technology is good enough to accurately track and Map ALL elements at play, i.e. ball position, defenders arm position etc, allowing for instant(ish) decisions (which will happen eventially) Then i'll be behind it.

right now it's a good idea badly implemented.

I sort of agree here, but not about the 'test it somewhere else' bit. The only way you get to where it's going quickly and properly is by going for it in real world scenarios – it's the fastest way to learn and iterate. Real data is always better to learn off than practice data.

I do however think they went a season too early with it, there were some pretty obvious changes they could have made and 12 months more testing would have been beneficial.

Calling for it to be taken away until it's vastly improved... not sure we'd ever get there though as the whole point of throwing it out there in the real world is to improve it faster but also more crucially demonstrate it works vs the goals that the governing bodies have set (and it does, the stats speak for themselves).

So yeah, it's a rapidly improving prototype in some ways, but if the end result is going to benefit and ultimately improve the game significantly and measurably then short term growing pains are an acceptable trade off.

It doesn't seem to be affecting the popularity of the product, really, other than fans grumbling about change. The amount of correct decisions has increased significantly. Yes the flow of the game has been affected but that will improve over time, and it's not done so fundamentally – i.e. people stopping coming to games and popularity waning. If anything it's more popular now than it ever has been.

In a way it's similar to this viewpoint regarding self driving car software prototypes being allowed on the road in their millions (although obviously without the saving lives bit, but the point is more or less transferrable)

Short of forbidding all testing of prototypes, there is no way to demand perfection. It is difficult to craft a regulatory regime that would ban self driving testing that doesn’t also ban or slow down the development of very important technology that will in time save millions of lives.

Nonetheless, we could define a set of rules for who can supervise a prototype system, and it might stop Tesla’s activity. But to do so would be to fall into the paradox of “the better it is, the more we don’t like it.” We don’t want to make it harder to cross that valley to becoming a better system. The real question is why we would want to even go there if nobody is being hurt. Right now there are not reports of people being hurt, certainly not at any levels that would indicate there is more risk than that from ordinary driving. We don’t want to fall into the trap of banning things because we have an intuition that they are dangerous. We only want to ban things that actually are dangerous.

So, is it dangerous and an existential threat to football itself? No. So it's here to stay (and improve)

Edited by SW19 CPFC (15 Feb 2023 5.51pm)

 


Did you know? 98.0000001% of people are morons.

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
View CrazyBadger's Profile CrazyBadger Flag Ware 16 Feb 23 8.58am Send a Private Message to CrazyBadger Add CrazyBadger as a friend

Originally posted by SW19 CPFC

I sort of agree here, but not about the 'test it somewhere else' bit. The only way you get to where it's going quickly and properly is by going for it in real world scenarios – it's the fastest way to learn and iterate. Real data is always better to learn off than practice data.

I do however think they went a season too early with it, there were some pretty obvious changes they could have made and 12 months more testing would have been beneficial.

Calling for it to be taken away until it's vastly improved... not sure we'd ever get there though as the whole point of throwing it out there in the real world is to improve it faster but also more crucially demonstrate it works vs the goals that the governing bodies have set (and it does, the stats speak for themselves).

So yeah, it's a rapidly improving prototype in some ways, but if the end result is going to benefit and ultimately improve the game significantly and measurably then short term growing pains are an acceptable trade off.

It doesn't seem to be affecting the popularity of the product, really, other than fans grumbling about change. The amount of correct decisions has increased significantly. Yes the flow of the game has been affected but that will improve over time, and it's not done so fundamentally – i.e. people stopping coming to games and popularity waning. If anything it's more popular now than it ever has been.

In a way it's similar to this viewpoint regarding self driving car software prototypes being allowed on the road in their millions (although obviously without the saving lives bit, but the point is more or less transferrable)

Short of forbidding all testing of prototypes, there is no way to demand perfection. It is difficult to craft a regulatory regime that would ban self driving testing that doesn’t also ban or slow down the development of very important technology that will in time save millions of lives.

Nonetheless, we could define a set of rules for who can supervise a prototype system, and it might stop Tesla’s activity. But to do so would be to fall into the paradox of “the better it is, the more we don’t like it.” We don’t want to make it harder to cross that valley to becoming a better system. The real question is why we would want to even go there if nobody is being hurt. Right now there are not reports of people being hurt, certainly not at any levels that would indicate there is more risk than that from ordinary driving. We don’t want to fall into the trap of banning things because we have an intuition that they are dangerous. We only want to ban things that actually are dangerous.

So, is it dangerous and an existential threat to football itself? No. So it's here to stay (and improve)

Edited by SW19 CPFC (15 Feb 2023 5.51pm)

Not saying do not put it in a real-world Scenario, as thats important for all the reasons you state, but not on the premium product, i.e the premier League. What's wrong with putting it in the Championship first, for example.

I've been largely behind VAR up til now, but it should be so much more effective than what it is. For whatever reason, the powers that be in this country are not implementing it correctly. We cannot have another weekend like the one just gone. The whole point of VAR was to eliminate these exact errors. It was so bad that no VAR would have got more right. What's the point of it if that is the case?

 


"It was a Team effort, I guess it took all players working together to lose this one"

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
View SW19 CPFC's Profile SW19 CPFC Flag Addiscombe West 16 Feb 23 11.43am Send a Private Message to SW19 CPFC Add SW19 CPFC as a friend

Originally posted by CrazyBadger

Not saying do not put it in a real-world Scenario, as thats important for all the reasons you state, but not on the premium product, i.e the premier League. What's wrong with putting it in the Championship first, for example.

I've been largely behind VAR up til now, but it should be so much more effective than what it is. For whatever reason, the powers that be in this country are not implementing it correctly. We cannot have another weekend like the one just gone. The whole point of VAR was to eliminate these exact errors. It was so bad that no VAR would have got more right. What's the point of it if that is the case?

Cost

There's no way the Championship would be able to implement it as it's far too expensive. There also is less of a business case, less money at stake etc. Not to mention you then have to maintain it in perpetuity – once the genie is out of the bottle... Plus the complexity of teams getting promoted having to pay up to have the system installed, lower league grounds not being up to standard to effectively implement it and so on. Not practical

On the latter point – VAR was brought in to reduce errors. It can't eliminate human error, which is always going to be present in an augmented system. The point is howlers like the weekend are happening with much less frequency because of the system. Significantly more decisions are being called correctly than ever before. It is working. The point of it is not perfection – that's impossible. So if you're asking for that before it gets introduced then its never going to happen.

It is better than it was at launch, and it will continue to improve until a point where errors become less and less frequent. But there will always be errors unless it is a fully automated system and you do away with refs and humans augmenting the process (not happening any time soon).

A weekend of big errors is not a valid reason to bin the whole thing off. Doesn't make any sense. It is an excellent reminder that the human component is the fallible element of the system and things like automated offsides need to be brought in faster.

Edited by SW19 CPFC (16 Feb 2023 11.44am)

 


Did you know? 98.0000001% of people are morons.

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
View ASCPFC's Profile ASCPFC Online Flag Pro-Cathedral/caravan park 16 Feb 23 12.19pm Send a Private Message to ASCPFC Add ASCPFC as a friend

I'm still completely unconvinced. If an issue is still open to interpretation it's still just the same as it was. Technology can only answer yes or no, in or out, one or zero. It can't give intention or any nuance at all. So technology for goal line - really good. Things like that. Anything with interpretation is literally just a replay watched by another ref. And there are always issues with replays and interpretations due to bias, human error, eyesight - anything really.
Just something else for saying about cricket and tennis - cricket still has umpire's call. Which, off the top of my head I believe is something to do with the technology having 99.7 percent accuracy or something like that. That could be centimetres or even inches across a football pitch. Certainly millimetres.
Clear and obvious - a whole other issue. Surely the common sense approach is that something is clear and obvious if it can be seen with the naked eye. It's not clear and obvious if you need several replays, computer generated lines and a few minutes to find it
I'm not saying it's a threat to the game - I'm saying it doesn't work, which it doesn't. But also that it detracts from the game as a spectacle. It's supposed to be sporting entertainment, not a drudge through several people's viewpoints on the same angle every time there is an incident or goal. It reminds me of NFL: a play every once in a while once taken to the nth degree. I like NFL by the way - I know what to expect. And I don't expect that at football.

 


Red and Blue Army!

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
View SW19 CPFC's Profile SW19 CPFC Flag Addiscombe West 16 Feb 23 12.40pm Send a Private Message to SW19 CPFC Add SW19 CPFC as a friend

Originally posted by ASCPFC

I'm still completely unconvinced. If an issue is still open to interpretation it's still just the same as it was. Technology can only answer yes or no, in or out, one or zero. It can't give intention or any nuance at all. So technology for goal line - really good. Things like that. Anything with interpretation is literally just a replay watched by another ref. And there are always issues with replays and interpretations due to bias, human error, eyesight - anything really.
Just something else for saying about cricket and tennis - cricket still has umpire's call. Which, off the top of my head I believe is something to do with the technology having 99.7 percent accuracy or something like that. That could be centimetres or even inches across a football pitch. Certainly millimetres.
Clear and obvious - a whole other issue. Surely the common sense approach is that something is clear and obvious if it can be seen with the naked eye. It's not clear and obvious if you need several replays, computer generated lines and a few minutes to find it
I'm not saying it's a threat to the game - I'm saying it doesn't work, which it doesn't. But also that it detracts from the game as a spectacle. It's supposed to be sporting entertainment, not a drudge through several people's viewpoints on the same angle every time there is an incident or goal. It reminds me of NFL: a play every once in a while once taken to the nth degree. I like NFL by the way - I know what to expect. And I don't expect that at football.


You're right, cricket has umpires call. And it works well.

However, this is effectively the same using VAR... it's not just the incidents that get pulled that are the ones that get reviewed. The game is being reviewed constantly, and they are making decisions in real time that an incident is either not worthy of a review or that it's not conclusive enough to escalate and therefore better to stick with the onfield decision (effectively umpires call).

You're also right that anything that requires interpretation is an issue. However this happens with replays in Rugby and no-one sees that as an issue as they accept that the addition of the review allows the right decision to be made more often than not (and more often than before) which is also the point of VAR.

Regarding offsides, which I personally think is the biggest time drain and most fallible use of VAR, as soon as the semi-automated system comes in next season the issues with time taken and line drawing will disappear. The only time contention will feature is for issues like the Rashford offside earlier in the season where the decision is down to an interpretation of what 'interfering with play' means, rather than the offside/onside itself.

I agree it's not a threat to the game, I don't agree that it doesn't work, as the facts prove it does – significantly more correct decisions are being made than ever before, and at elite level that is gold dust.

Your gripe seems to come down to whether it improves or detracts from the game as a spectacle, which is of course entirely subjective.

As previously stated I do agree that VAR can work a lot better and there are still too many stoppages and time wasting because of it, but I also think this will improve exponentially over time, and the incidents that do require more consideration take no longer than the time it used to take for the referee to disperse hoards of angry players desperately trying to influence him, wander over to his assistant and discuss what happened before making a final call.

NFL is an extreme example – it's hyperbole to try and say Football is now the same in terms of stoppages and time wasting.

On the point about 'its meant to be sporting entertainment' – is Rugby not entertaining then? Cricket? Tennis?

 


Did you know? 98.0000001% of people are morons.

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
View MrRobbo's Profile MrRobbo Flag Purley 16 Feb 23 1.16pm Send a Private Message to MrRobbo Add MrRobbo as a friend

Originally posted by SW19 CPFC

It's a nice suggestion, but you'd also have to weigh up the negative effects of it being introduced, eg. time wasting and tactical use. Much like players using it to their advantage in tennis – allowing time for recovery, or breaking an opponents concentration, stopping the momentum and so on. You're also adding to the amount of stoppages across the game.

It's not a silver bullet.

Of course, noting is going to completely fix this, but managers already waste time with 89th min subs etc.

But as Nicholas91 said I think it will help in 2 areas:

Only reviewing a couple of things per game vs loads

Players and managers shouting and arguing with the ref. If they think he is wrong challenge, if not, shut up

 

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
View SW19 CPFC's Profile SW19 CPFC Flag Addiscombe West 16 Feb 23 1.43pm Send a Private Message to SW19 CPFC Add SW19 CPFC as a friend

Originally posted by MrRobbo

Of course, noting is going to completely fix this, but managers already waste time with 89th min subs etc.

But as Nicholas91 said I think it will help in 2 areas:

Only reviewing a couple of things per game vs loads

Players and managers shouting and arguing with the ref. If they think he is wrong challenge, if not, shut up

Ah you mean instead of VAR instead of in addition to it

Possibly. You'd have to look at statistics re. how many critical incorrect decisions were made per game over the years pre VAR though to see if it would be enough/worthwhile.

The other problem with it is managers and players could challenge for anything, effectively, rather than just critical decisions. So all those reviews could be wasted on relatively unimportant incidents and when a critical one pops up they're screwed as they've run out. On that basis I'm not sure it would be any better, really. At least with VAR there's no limit on what can be reviewed and it's as neutrally assigned as possible.

Also as someone has already pointed out players and manages would still continue to abuse the ref regardless.

Edited by SW19 CPFC (16 Feb 2023 1.44pm)

 


Did you know? 98.0000001% of people are morons.

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
View Nicholas91's Profile Nicholas91 Flag The Democratic Republic of Kent 16 Feb 23 5.03pm Send a Private Message to Nicholas91 Add Nicholas91 as a friend

Originally posted by SW19 CPFC

It's a nice suggestion, but you'd also have to weigh up the negative effects of it being introduced, eg. time wasting and tactical use. Much like players using it to their advantage in tennis – allowing time for recovery, or breaking an opponents concentration, stopping the momentum and so on. You're also adding to the amount of stoppages across the game.

It's not a silver bullet.

It's a fair point SW19 however I'd add that is already happening and to an unlimited extent.

I'm sure I've watched a fair few games where a ludicrous amount of time is dedicated to players just standing around on the pitch waiting for VAR.

Just say 2 calls per game in any instance, or even 1 (the rest of the game playing out as per usual). You could only challenge an incorrect call at the end of the day otherwise you would not retain your challenge.

 


Now Zaha's got a bit of green grass ahead of him here... and finds Ambrose... not a bad effort!!!!

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply

 

Page 12 of 12 << First< 8 9 10 11 12

Previous Topic | Next Topic

You are here: Home > Message Board > Football Talk > VAR this weekend