Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

No More Sarri - Premier League 2019/20

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    Was bang inline for Villa's disallowed goal. Absolutely no one thought that it was offside.

    Comment


      Because it wasn't. Yet another perfectly good goal disallowed several minutes later due to VAR. Football is a sport, not a science, and VAR is ruining it. Not only does it destroy the spontaneity of celebrating a goal, only to find after an interminable delay that someone's ear lobe was 3mm offside, it is also a nonsense in that it is physically impossible to deliver decisions with the degree of accuracy claimed by its proponents, since this involves multiple moving targets and judgements to the millisecond. I'm all in favour of VAR to judge whether the ball crosses the line for a goal, which is a comparatively simple mechanical fact. Using it for subjective decisions such as fouls, or microscopic assessments of 'offside' is a ludicrous waste of time and effort which undermines the authority of the match officials and yet still doesn't improve the quality of the decisions. In fact, if VAR is to be applied in its current guise, why do we need 'assistant referees' at all? Surely VAR can indicate when a ball has crossed the line for a throw or goal-kick / corner, and the referee can decide who touched it last. If a goal is scored following an 'offside', no matter how miniscule, VAR will be used to overturn it, and if the 'offside' doesn't lead to a goal then play may as well continue. I've been watching football for nearly fifty years, and nothing has ever enraged me to this degree, that I can't even face watching my team play any more, and have turned BT Sport off in disgust. Remember when Law 5 actually meant something?

      Comment


        Football is a sport, not a science, and VAR is ruining it.
        Science is all about error bars and quantifying the uncertainty, and not interpreting within that uncertainty. If anything, a more scientific approach would be better.

        Comment


          Whether the ball crosses the line isn’t determined by VAR in any case.

          Comment


            Rather splendid equaliser for Brighton against Chelsea.

            Comment


              Clarets could have played the second half like Brazil 1970 and still deserved to lose that

              Comment


                Originally posted by Snake Plissken View Post
                Clarets could have played the second half like Brazil 1970 and still deserved to lose that
                You lost it with the first half performance Snake. Wesley's goal looked a cracker and "both" Grealish goals were superb... hopefully we can push on. Fingers crossed that Heaton and Wesley aren't badly injured.

                Also good to see Mings back v the "Mingsy" imposter that had taken his place since he became an England regular.

                Comment


                  Originally posted by Jah Womble View Post
                  Whether the ball crosses the line isn’t determined by VAR in any case.
                  Yes, I know, but I was in mid-rant and failed to observe the minutiae. Should have said 'technology' to judge whether a goal has been scored. Mea culpa.

                  Comment


                    Doesn't alter the fact that VAR is a pile of guano.

                    Comment


                      Nigel Pearson is doing a decent job at Watford, eh?

                      Comment


                        Norwich as ever playing really well in the first half, going 1-0 up and missing chances. Just hoping the second half doesn't follow our usual pattern of chucking a lead away and running out of gas.

                        Comment


                          Southampton have a goal difference of-13, nine of them conceded in a single match.

                          At the beginning of December the bottom three looked doomed now it's looking like 3 from 11, Palace and below.

                          I'm sure this shows the competitiveness and quality of the Premier League.

                          Comment


                            Originally posted by Arturo View Post
                            Norwich as ever playing really well in the first half, going 1-0 up and missing chances. Just hoping the second half doesn't follow our usual pattern of chucking a lead away and running out of gas.
                            Well called.

                            Comment


                              Bollocks. Every time.
                              Last edited by Arturo; 01-01-2020, 20:00.

                              Comment


                                What is going on with Bournemouth these days? They seem to be losing a lot of games.

                                10 points from 4 games for Pearson at Watford. At this rate they'll qualify for Europe.

                                Comment


                                  Bournemouth have an injury crisis apparently. That's the reason given for recalling Surridge from us.

                                  Comment


                                    Also Eddie Howe's teams have always gone streaks of winning and losing.

                                    Comment


                                      Originally posted by Antepli Ejderha View Post
                                      Southampton have a goal difference of-13, nine of them conceded in a single match.

                                      At the beginning of December the bottom three looked doomed now it's looking like 3 from 11, Palace and below.

                                      I'm sure this shows the competitiveness and quality of the Premier League.
                                      Either The Guardian or the BBC had an article with a difference between the actual table and that from expected Goals in each match. Southampton were the side with the biggest differential between their actual position and where that metric would have predicted them to be. Which was fifth, above Leicester and Wolves. What that shows is the Saints have been creating (what the people who measure xG consider) good goal scoring chances, but being profligate. However their recent run would also suggest a reversion to the mean - they had bad luck earlier in the campaign with chance conversion, and that is now being balanced out. And as a result, the Saints are climbing the table, which is what the xG crowd would have expected them to do.

                                      It also suggests the 0-9 was even more of an aberration than it appeared at the time. Which was aberration enough.

                                      Comment


                                        Post 1242 on this thread has a link to that from NS

                                        Comment


                                          But back in the real world, it was a good day for Leicester today. An easy win, Man United, Wolves and Spurs all lost and Chelsea drew. Just Sheff United to play, and as it's against Liverpool there is basically no bad result possible there for Leicester. That top three/four position looks very secure again after the wobble of getting well beaten by Man City and Liverpool.

                                          Comment


                                            I was under the impression that Man Utd had lost all their games against teams that were in the bottom half of the table at that point. I was mistaken: Bournemouth were 9th and West Ham were 8th. Still, every side United has lost against has bottom-half of the table experience (as do, of course, Man Utd).

                                            Comment


                                              Originally posted by hobbes View Post
                                              (To anton) But you’re argument is redundant. Given we all know it wil never be perfect to an atomic level, the question becomes “is it substantially more accurate?” Which it demonstrably is.
                                              most of the arguments about disallowed goals have been “well he was only a tiny bit offside.”
                                              I know you have trouble separating reality from fantasy when it comes to Ajax, we’re all guilty of that to some degree. We all have “they fucked us” stories. Liverpool would have won the league in 2014 if Stirling’s goal against Man City had stood. He was 2 or 3 yards onside and (I think) in his own half. Linesman flagged for offside erroneously. City drew the game and won the league by 2 points. Thing is, that was the best they could do then. The best they could do is now better. So Chelsea got the rub of the green this time.
                                              This was the call:



                                              It was 0-0 at the time, and Liverpool went ahead soon after through Coutinho. Unfortunately for Liverpool, they lost 2-1 because simon Mignolet was in goals and did this:



                                              In Liverpool's next game, away to Chelsea, they took another early lead before Hazard scored a lovely equaliser. Simon Mignolet then did this (2.55):

                                              https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m9pojutAhnU&t=166s

                                              Liverpool were ahead in both games, and came away with 0 points, thanks in a large part to that chocolate-wristed joker
                                              Last edited by Bootleg Mark Chapman; 02-01-2020, 10:28.

                                              Comment


                                                I slept through most of yesterday's football. I see a midfield of Fred, Lingard and Glenn Whelan didn't work too well last night. No offsides in that game at all I notice.

                                                Just briefly to AP.

                                                Originally posted by anton pulisov View Post

                                                If anything, by saying that VAR is not infallible, I am acknowledging that there is an element of lottery/luck in football, a margin within which VAR is not capable of judging. The authorities need to acknowledge that as well.
                                                But they don't claim it's infallible, and they're not aiming for 100% accuracy, because it's impossible. From the article I linked to earlier. on ESPN

                                                Is offside judged as a "clear and obvious" error?
                                                Offside, like the ball crossing the line, is considered a binary and objective decision. For example, a player will be adjudged offside even if only his toes are in front of the last defender.

                                                On the season's opening weekend, Manchester City had a goal disallowed at West Ham after Raheem Sterling's shoulder was shown to be just ahead of the last defender.

                                                Does someone draw lines on a TV screen?
                                                The Premier League (and FIFA) uses Hawk-eye 3D imaging technology, which judges offside by the part of a player's body furthest forward (excluding arms). Several cameras are used to judge the offside line.

                                                How does the VAR decide which frame to use?
                                                The first point of contact of the passing act is key, not the point of release. The Hawk-eye operative will select three frames for the VAR, who will choose the one that best represents that first point. From this frame, the 3D imaging is activated.

                                                How is the offside decision made?
                                                Once the frame has been selected, the Hawk-eye official will, in consultation with the VAR, mark reference points on the relevant attacking and defenders. Markers will be placed on the front foot, shoulder and possibly the knee depending on each player's stance.

                                                These points are then applied to the imaging software, which will produce a blue line for the defending player and a red line for the attacking player. If any of the blue line can be seen behind the red line, then the attacking player is in an offside position.

                                                Is VAR 100% accurate for offside?
                                                Present technology means it cannot be 100%, but it does allow officials to make a more informed decision than by using the naked eye in real time.

                                                Also, cameras used at football matches are not of sufficient quality to be completely accurate, with some claims there should be a margin of error of around 13cm.

                                                So why not use a margin for error on tight calls?
                                                MLS and the A-League have chosen not to use calibrated lines or Hawk-eye technology, instead preferring the naked eye to analyse the freeze frame while looking for anything they categorise as "clearly and obviously wrong."

                                                The IFAB is to discuss the possibility of applying "clear and obvious" to some degree when it next meets in March, but there will be no change to VAR protocol before June 1, 2020.


                                                They don't think it's infallible, they think it's a lot more accurate than the alternative. And yes there are error bars, but they're much smaller than for a human eyeball trying to watch the passer, the attacker and the defender, and may not be in the perfect position. If people weren't moaning about VAR they'd be having rows about offside goals that were given, and onside goals that were called back incorrectly. The thing is that there is always going to be some error in this measurement, but at some point you have to make a decision. The outcome of this system is two lines, and if one line is the tiniest measurable distance over the other line, then they're offside. That's just the system they use. People should spend less time being weirded out by technology, and focus more on the reduced number of errors. if you have a problem with the system making a decision based on the width of a pixel, then you've got wider problems with the concepts of Offside. That's just how offside has always worked. It's just that in the past the lines were drawn exclusively in the linesman's head.

                                                I bring up the Ajax example because it is the main example that I know of of VAR getting it totally wrong by pretending that it can judge within margins that it can not. I tend to watch more Ajax matches than other teams, so I am more likely to notice it.
                                                ​On the night it worked against Ajax. If a similar decision were to work out in Ajax's favour then it would be equally wrong. (My beef with Chelsea is that a cascade of decisions went their way, and the head of Chelsea has a documented history of bribing various legal authorities, and that football authorities have a documented history of taking bribes. But that is another discussion altogether.)
                                                The offside system they use in the premier league is different to the one in the Champions league, though and since it's based on assessing when the player strikes the ball, would have been less likely to make that mistake. I'd be more curious why the VAR official wasn't screaming in the ear of the ref when he was sending off two players and awarding a penalty for something that should have been a free kick to Ajax, and possibly a second yellow for blind.

                                                I am not against VAR in principle. As I say, it should be used as an aid, but not a magic wand. It has the potential to augment the human abilities of the referee and help overturn obvious mistakes and poor calls. I'm all for that. It would be a definite improvement to the game.
                                                ​​​​But like a referee, VAR has its own limitations. However, the beauty about it being a piece of technology, and not a human, is that its limitations and uncertainty can be quantified, jus like how a thermometer or weighing scale can report a value ± a certain uncertainty.
                                                ​​​​​There's no reason why the VAR judges can't just return "no further information, go with the decision on the field". We know that it is not technically possible with normal TV cameras to judge within the margins that they are trying to do, so why are they doing it? Do a scientific study of all the uncertainties and define the margins, and operate within the framework of those margins. Anything else is down to luck, and luck is a part of the beauty of the game.

                                                ​​
                                                The problem with that though is that no "decision has been made on the field." The linesman has kept his flag down to leave it to VAR. At some point this line of argument does run the risk of falling into the trap of opposing change by setting down unrealistic standards for the change to meet, standards you don't apply to the status quo. .Essentially offside is just a binary test, and because Humans, and physics are involved there are always going to be false positives (Incorrectly allowed goals) and false negatives (incorrectly disallowed goals) From my perspective I'm primarily interested in its capacity to reduce false positives and false negatives and it certainly seems to do that. You seem to be arguing that because it doesn't entirely eliminate false positives or false negatives, then either it is useless, or you should systematically err towards false positives (Say he's onside) in some way that is going to lead to another definitional problem and another series of rows. .

                                                I think the thing that is most revealing about this whole thing is how deep you have to go looking to find explanations for this stuff, because they made such a poor job of explaining this system, and making people aware of how it works..This debate is taking place in a near total lack of information, and what you are in effect seeing is people reporting their personal responses to change. If you are going to be introducing a change to a footballing culture that is as reactionary as English top level football, and as resistant to systematic thought, preferring instead hot takes based on emotional reactions, you're going to have to be a lot clearer than that, even though it's not going to make an enormous amount of difference.having watched the last five years in UK politics, I think it's fair to say that the Nostalgic anger Genie is well and truly out of the lamp.
                                                Last edited by The Awesome Berbaslug!!!; 02-01-2020, 10:51.

                                                Comment


                                                  Comment


                                                    Originally posted by The Awesome Berbaslug!!! View Post
                                                    ...resistant to systematic thought... emotional reactions,... Nostalgic anger Genie ...
                                                    *sigh*

                                                    Comment

                                                    Working...
                                                    X