VAR - Slow Motion

[5 on Tour]

VAR simply isn’t working. A penalty has just been given in the AC Milan vs Juventus game in the semi final of the Coppa Italia.

Penalty to Juve after the ref watched a replay on the touch line. Ball has been crossed in and Ronaldo has gone for an overhead kick which he hit relatively well. As the ball was crossed in it went over the defender in front of Ronaldo as he jumped to head it. When Ronaldo connects it goes all of one foot forward where it hits the arm of the defender. His arm is by his side and he is facing away from the ball - he would have no idea that Ronaldo even connected. In full speed it’s not been given but when it’s slowed down into super super slo mo and moved forward 1 frame at a time it’s been given.

How is this football? And when did the world of football lose all common sense?

[DonnyBazR0ver]

Just seen it. His arm wasn't by his side, it was away from his body. Agreed he couldn't do anything about it but that's the new interpretation of the rule. I don't particularly like it but I think the ref interpreted it correctly.

[karldew]

I’ve just seen it. Not sure he kind of knew what he was doing. Ramos did one in the last World Cup which is very similar to this one.

[5 on Tour]

But my question is do you think at full speed/real time it was a penalty? Or when slowed right down into super slow motion?

In my opinion they give you very different outcomes of the same thing.

[IDM]

At least the ref went to look at the screen to make a decision.

It’s not having VAR that is the problem, it’s how it is being used and the interpretation of the rules it’s used for.

[ravenrover]

JMHO but VAR should not be in slow mo look at it in real time and if not clear and obvious let the refs decision stand, after it's supposed to be the on field refs call isn't it?

[5 on Tour]

JMHO but VAR should not be in slow mo look at it in real time and if not clear and obvious let the refs decision stand, after it's supposed to be the on field refs call isn't it?

Exactly my point and view as well. Along with the interpretation. It’s largely revolving around hand ball. Offside isn’t subjective as you either are or are not. Hand ball currently is a joke.

So last night he is one yard away from the player kicking it, he is facing away, his arm is to his side although slightly outstretched(are we suggesting players should jump like a “pencil dive” with arms fixed to their sides?) and he is in the air. If that is NOT the exact definition of ball to hand I don’t know what is.

If the lad has intentionally blocked it from that distance without being able to see where the ball is he is absolutely incredible.

[IDM]

But that’s the handball rule and it’s interpretation at fault, not var.?

I agree with the point about using VAR at real time speed - just to give the ref another view he or she may have missed originally.

I also favour an equivalent of crickets “umpires call” giving more priority to the on field officials..

[5 on Tour]

I think it’s both and them being used together. Slow motion just needs binning off.

Every tackle looks horrendous in slow motion as well - even the good ones.

I agree about the umpires calls or benefit of the doubt type approach.

[chrisd_123]

I wouldn't say slow motion needs binning off as that could be crutial and worth £££ for teams if it goes against them.

Look at the Millwall Fulham game.  If VAR had been there and slowed down the Millwall goal they'd have seen the Millwall player hook the ball on so the goalscorer was offside. That could end up being the difference between promotion and not for Fulham.

[BillyStubbsTears]

5 on Tour

I've pointed out before that offside actually isn't objective. There's a fundamental assumption in the offside rule which is wrong.

That is that there is a specific instant of time at which the ball is played. But there isn't. The foot-ball contact takes several milliseconds. Research using high speed video track shows that, even for the hardest shots (which have the lowest contact time) this is around 10 milliseconds. It will be much longer for a softer pass.

A player sprinting at top speed will hit about 10m/s. In 10 milliseconds, that means they will move 100mm or 4 inches.

VAR is currently making offside decisions on margins much lower than that. And it's wrong to be doing so. It is a fundamentally flawed attempt to impose certainty on an uncertain problem.

[Bristol Red Rover]

With both the handball and offside decisions it's worth looking at what the point of them is. VAR helping overturn decisions when it's "clear and obvious" is fine, and sometimes slow mo helps but not when it's to show fine margins because that is just not "clear and obvious" unless you're a psycho nerd which is what some refs are.

Offside is easy. The main point is to stop players hanging around upfield - I think the game could be more interesting if that's totally dropped, but that's another discussion. A few seasons ago it was about having daylight between the payers, now it's if a thread on their sock is infront - nuts, and for me doesn't constitute "clear and obvious" including for the reason BST gave.

Handball is about not using the hands and arms to play the ball, essentially to distinguish the game from rugby. So anything deliberate is clearly handball. If it's careless - waving arms around which then happen to contact the ball - that's clearly handball. When it gets to how many millimeters the arms have to be from the body, we're again not in the realm of "clear and obvious". If someone is jumping, or sliding into a tackle, with arms outstretched to balance and a ball hits an arm even from close range, for me that's handball, just a risk and tough luck - but it's arguable in terms of making laws.

[ravenrover]

With both the handball and offside decisions it's worth looking at what the point of them is. VAR helping overturn decisions when it's "clear and obvious" is fine, and sometimes slow mo helps but not when it's to show fine margins because that is just not "clear and obvious" unless you're a psycho nerd which is what some refs are.

Offside is easy. The main point is to stop players hanging around upfield - I think the game could be more interesting if that's totally dropped, but that's another discussion. A few seasons ago it was about having daylight between the payers, now it's if a thread on their sock is infront - nuts, and for me doesn't constitute "clear and obvious" including for the reason BST gave.

Handball is about not using the hands and arms to play the ball, essentially to distinguish the game from rugby. So anything deliberate is clearly handball. If it's careless - waving arms around which then happen to contact the ball - that's clearly handball. When it gets to how many millimeters the arms have to be from the body, we're again not in the realm of "clear and obvious". If someone is jumping, or sliding into a tackle, with arms outstretched to balance and a ball hits an arm even from close range, for me that's handball, just a risk and tough luck - but it's arguable in terms of making laws.

To stop players hanging about offside? I give you Palaces 2nd goal in the cup last season, Meyer wandering back yards offside Rovers push up ball is played down the line to Townsend which now puts Meyer on side unmarked, cross comes in 2-0.

[Bristol Red Rover]

To stop players hanging about offside? I give you Palaces 2nd goal in the cup last season, Meyer wandering back yards offside Rovers push up ball is played down the line to Townsend which now puts Meyer on side unmarked, cross comes in 2-0.

Playing the rules. But I think that illustrates how the game would be more open, possibly more exciting, possibly more goals, and definitely less controversial.