|
Post by Malcolm Clarke on Jan 11, 2020 11:17:41 GMT
That's not correct. The laws of the game, and their interpretation, are drawn up by IFAB, the international board. From the start of this season they changed the interpretation of the handball law to disallow goals which have a handball in the build up, even if accidental. In other situations accidental handball is not an offence. The full list of changes is here www.the-ra.org/news/ifab-law-changes-2019-2020The use of VAR in the English Premier league is a completely separate matter. VAR applies the laws. It doesn't make them. It's the same with its use for offside. Much of the criticism of its application for offside is actually a criticism of the law. You can be for or against VAR, and for or against the laws as they are now written and interpreted, but the two things are different, and the decisions on them are taken by completely different bodies. I'm not sure you can separate the two things. In the game last night the ref didn't see the offence, it was the intervention of VAR that effected the decision, so it is in effect a VAR decision. The reason the ref didn't see anything is that it was very minor, i.e. not clear or obvious. I think the fans are irritated by VAR picking very minor incidents that previously would not be deemed significant. Its therefore a ridiculous rule combined with a ridiculous enforcement. I haven't seen the incident so can't comment specifically, but I think you make an interesting point, which gets quite technical. The new handball interpretation doesn't allow for any discretion by the referee. If it hits the arm in a build-up to a goal it's disallowed. Whether it's "clear or obvious" - themselves terms which are very subjective - is not just, or even primarily, determined by whether the referee sees it. It might be very "clear" from a different angle to that which the ref had, which of course is why they have introduced VAR. It seems to me that there are three different aspects to handball - first - did it hit the arm or not, a matter of fact, which VAR can resolve. Second - was it 'intentional' - a concept which has always, long before cameras and VAR, caused great debates about meaning and interpretation (which is partly why they have now made it irrelevant if a goal is scored). Third - what were the CONSEQUENCES of the handball, i.e did it give a significant advantage. That has never been part of the rule, but I think maybe it should be ? I think that is the point you are making about "minor" isn't it ? That the contact with the arm didn't make any difference - as I say, I haven't seen it so can't comment in that respect on last night's incident. But the law at present doesn't allow that to be a factor, whether or not it is followed by a goal.
|
|
|
Post by spitthedog on Jan 11, 2020 11:17:42 GMT
Fair enough Malcolm, but my original point still stands. The authorities and VAR may be separate entities but they are still doing their level best to completley ruin football as a spectator sport. I agree that the present position is unsustainable because the delays are ruining the experience of goal celebration and fans in the ground are often in the dark about what's going on. Separately, I also think there are problems with both the handball and offside laws. To be fair, I think there always have been but VAR has highlighted it. I'm not sure what the answer is. When I was young ( a long time ago) and there was no TV coverage of every game we could ( and did) argue all night long in the pub about whether it was a penalty; offside or whatever, and there was no way of resolving it. But ever since there have been cameras at every ground in the professional game, referees and their assistants have been pilloried by pundits and fans alike for the (inevitable - they are only human) mistakes which they show up. We can't have our cake and eat it. If we don't want VAR, we will have to accept that mistakes, sometimes very vital ones, will be made. This is an interesting point, it's really that football was designed in a way where human error (players and referees) has been part of the game. It has evolved like that. It feels intrinsic. Technically that decision last night is correct, but no-one (only pedantic types maybe) think it is right. It doesn't feel natural for the game to work like this after 100 plus years working in a completely different way. If the ref doesn't see it, that's the way it is, get on with it and accept it. Its gone on like that for a long time and I, like many others, am starting to feel nostalgic for that now.
|
|
|
Post by Squeekster on Jan 11, 2020 11:22:02 GMT
Do what they do in Germany after all the uproar over there use it only for penalties!
|
|
|
Post by mattador78 on Jan 11, 2020 11:22:55 GMT
Fair enough Malcolm, but my original point still stands. The authorities and VAR may be separate entities but they are still doing their level best to completley ruin football as a spectator sport. I agree that the present position is unsustainable because the delays are ruining the experience of goal celebration and fans in the ground are often in the dark about what's going on. Separately, I also think there are problems with both the handball and offside laws. To be fair, I think there always have been but VAR has highlighted it. I'm not sure what the answer is. When I was young ( a long time ago) and there was no TV coverage of every game we could ( and did) argue all night long in the pub about whether it was a penalty; offside or whatever, and there was no way of resolving it. But ever since there have been cameras at every ground in the professional game, referees and their assistants have been pilloried by pundits and fans alike for the (inevitable - they are only human) mistakes which they show up. We can't have our cake and eat it. If we don't want VAR, we will have to accept that mistakes, sometimes very vital ones, will be made. I don’t dislike VAR but as I posted further up it should be the on field officials asked to look in real time from a different angle and see if they can see it. Not have it freeze framed until your trying use a AI system like on FIFA or pro evolution which only works because it knows the size of the pixels and the speed of the avatars movement in relation to its surrounding objects which it all works out in a millisecond because it’s a mathematical equation. I’m not knocking our officials but unless they have at least a degree in forensics and physics and brain like Alan Turing they are on for a hiding when they are freeze framing every decision and trying to get an answer out in minutes.
|
|
|
Post by Squeekster on Jan 11, 2020 11:27:42 GMT
I'm not sure you can separate the two things. In the game last night the ref didn't see the offence, it was the intervention of VAR that effected the decision, so it is in effect a VAR decision. The reason the ref didn't see anything is that it was very minor, i.e. not clear or obvious. I think the fans are irritated by VAR picking very minor incidents that previously would not be deemed significant. Its therefore a ridiculous rule combined with a ridiculous enforcement. I haven't seen the incident so can't comment specifically, but I think you make an interesting point, which gets quite technical. The new handball interpretation doesn't allow for any discretion by the referee. If it hits the arm in a build-up to a goal it's disallowed. Whether it's "clear or obvious" - themselves terms which are very subjective - is not just, or even primarily, determined by whether the referee sees it. It might be very "clear" from a different angle to that which the ref had, which of course is why they have introduced VAR. It seems to me that there are three different aspects to handball - first - did it hit the arm or not, a matter of fact, which VAR can resolve. Second - was it 'intentional' - a concept which has always, long before cameras and VAR, caused great debates about meaning and interpretation (which is partly why they have now made it irrelevant if a goal is scored). Third - what were the CONSEQUENCES of the handball, i.e did it give a significant advantage. That has never been part of the rule, but I think maybe it should be ? I think that is the point you are making about "minor" isn't it ? That the contact with the arm didn't make any difference - as I say, I haven't seen it so can't comment in that respect on last night's incident. But the law at present doesn't allow that to be a factor, whether or not it is followed by a goal. So if Rice does that on the edge of his penalty area,not in and then plays the ball out to the wing whilst defending and nothing comes of it, is it still handball or not?
|
|
|
Post by mattador78 on Jan 11, 2020 12:05:33 GMT
I haven't seen the incident so can't comment specifically, but I think you make an interesting point, which gets quite technical. The new handball interpretation doesn't allow for any discretion by the referee. If it hits the arm in a build-up to a goal it's disallowed. Whether it's "clear or obvious" - themselves terms which are very subjective - is not just, or even primarily, determined by whether the referee sees it. It might be very "clear" from a different angle to that which the ref had, which of course is why they have introduced VAR. It seems to me that there are three different aspects to handball - first - did it hit the arm or not, a matter of fact, which VAR can resolve. Second - was it 'intentional' - a concept which has always, long before cameras and VAR, caused great debates about meaning and interpretation (which is partly why they have now made it irrelevant if a goal is scored). Third - what were the CONSEQUENCES of the handball, i.e did it give a significant advantage. That has never been part of the rule, but I think maybe it should be ? I think that is the point you are making about "minor" isn't it ? That the contact with the arm didn't make any difference - as I say, I haven't seen it so can't comment in that respect on last night's incident. But the law at present doesn't allow that to be a factor, whether or not it is followed by a goal. So if Rice does that on the edge of his penalty area,not in and then plays the ball out to the wing whilst defending and nothing comes of it, is it still handball or not? It’s not handball 🤦♂️
|
|
|
Post by salopstick on Jan 11, 2020 12:17:22 GMT
The referee referees the game. He is human they make mistakes.
VAR should be there to aid the referee not to do his job for him or be there to give the ref a cop out when he’s fucked up. He should only consult VAR sparingly when he’s completely unsure.
This should be the standard.
It would need referees players and managers to buy in it to it properly.
If a goal is wrongly given or not given by the referee who believed at the time to be right you can’t have VAR used afterwards so a manager can come out and moan he got it it wrong. Can’t have it both ways.
Bigger issues that would sort football out. Independent time keeping and mic-Iing the referees up would sort a lot of shit out
|
|
|
Post by spitthedog on Jan 11, 2020 12:28:33 GMT
I'm not sure you can separate the two things. In the game last night the ref didn't see the offence, it was the intervention of VAR that effected the decision, so it is in effect a VAR decision. The reason the ref didn't see anything is that it was very minor, i.e. not clear or obvious. I think the fans are irritated by VAR picking very minor incidents that previously would not be deemed significant. Its therefore a ridiculous rule combined with a ridiculous enforcement. I haven't seen the incident so can't comment specifically, but I think you make an interesting point, which gets quite technical. The new handball interpretation doesn't allow for any discretion by the referee. If it hits the arm in a build-up to a goal it's disallowed. Whether it's "clear or obvious" - themselves terms which are very subjective - is not just, or even primarily, determined by whether the referee sees it. It might be very "clear" from a different angle to that which the ref had, which of course is why they have introduced VAR. It seems to me that there are three different aspects to handball - first - did it hit the arm or not, a matter of fact, which VAR can resolve. Second - was it 'intentional' - a concept which has always, long before cameras and VAR, caused great debates about meaning and interpretation (which is partly why they have now made it irrelevant if a goal is scored). Third - what were the CONSEQUENCES of the handball, i.e did it give a significant advantage. That has never been part of the rule, but I think maybe it should be ? I think that is the point you are making about "minor" isn't it ? That the contact with the arm didn't make any difference - as I say, I haven't seen it so can't comment in that respect on last night's incident. But the law at present doesn't allow that to be a factor, whether or not it is followed by a goal. Fair points, and a reasonable way of moving forward I would think. In the case of last night there is a definite consequence of a goal being scored because the ball hit the hand, but there is still room for an interpretation there, many things happened between the ball hitting the hand and the goal, so the goal is not a direct consequence of only the handball, but the handball does contribute to the goal. The point is. ultimately, this should be the decision of referee. We are trying to combine interpretation, i.e. subjectivity (which cannot, and probably, should not) be eradicated from the game, with objectivity. It proves, to me at least, that ultimately there is a subjective element to virtually everything (getting a bit deep here perhaps!) and things are ultimately more resolved when one accepts this. It's pretty obvious by now that most football fans, players and managers do not like this move towards trying to achieve total objectivity in the game, as it strives for improved decision-making, and I would say that is because it is not part of the culture of the game.
|
|
|
Post by AlbertTatlock on Jan 11, 2020 12:54:34 GMT
Only just watched it, and TBF the ball came of both of Rices arms. If that would have been against us and not given I'd be furious as would most of us. We all knock VAR but if we would have had it in our relegation season we wouldn't have been relegated. Mind you if my Aunt had bollox she'd be my Uncle Gouranga.
|
|
|
Post by thebet365 on Jan 11, 2020 13:19:46 GMT
I haven't seen the incident so can't comment specifically, but I think you make an interesting point, which gets quite technical. The new handball interpretation doesn't allow for any discretion by the referee. If it hits the arm in a build-up to a goal it's disallowed. Whether it's "clear or obvious" - themselves terms which are very subjective - is not just, or even primarily, determined by whether the referee sees it. It might be very "clear" from a different angle to that which the ref had, which of course is why they have introduced VAR. It seems to me that there are three different aspects to handball - first - did it hit the arm or not, a matter of fact, which VAR can resolve. Second - was it 'intentional' - a concept which has always, long before cameras and VAR, caused great debates about meaning and interpretation (which is partly why they have now made it irrelevant if a goal is scored). Third - what were the CONSEQUENCES of the handball, i.e did it give a significant advantage. That has never been part of the rule, but I think maybe it should be ? I think that is the point you are making about "minor" isn't it ? That the contact with the arm didn't make any difference - as I say, I haven't seen it so can't comment in that respect on last night's incident. But the law at present doesn't allow that to be a factor, whether or not it is followed by a goal. Fair points, and a reasonable way of moving forward I would think. In the case of last night there is a definite consequence of a goal being scored because the ball hit the hand, but there is still room for an interpretation there, many things happened between the ball hitting the hand and the goal, so the goal is not a direct consequence of only the handball, but the handball does contribute to the goal. The point is. ultimately, this should be the decision of referee. We are trying to combine interpretation, i.e. subjectivity (which cannot, and probably, should not) be eradicated from the game, with objectivity. It proves, to me at least, that ultimately there is a subjective element to virtually everything (getting a bit deep here perhaps!) and things are ultimately more resolved when one accepts this. It's pretty obvious by now that most football fans, players and managers do not like this move towards trying to achieve total objectivity in the game, as it strives for improved decision-making, and I would say that is because it is not part of the culture of the game. The crucial thing for me last night was that the handball changed the direction of the ball, without it hitting his hand that ball was gonna fly off towards the throw in line, but hitting his hand blocked it and it fell perfectly infront of him, certainly not deliberate but gave him a massive advantage. 1 of only a few decisions recently I fully agree with. Edit: Just watched the replay again, it was a foul anyway for me, The Sheff Utd player heads it and Rice clatters him.
|
|
|
Post by metalhead on Jan 11, 2020 13:52:59 GMT
I'm sure Trevor will have sorted an emergency meeting at the FA today. Perhaps they can overturn the result, maybe even give it to West Ham? They won the World Cup once you know?
|
|
|
Post by adi on Jan 11, 2020 16:27:12 GMT
I think your anger is misplaced massively here. It’s not the fans watching who make the decisions on the rules. Yeah and why would a neutral in an armchair want good goals routinely chalked off in games? The whole thing is such a dreadful misadventure Was it wrongfully ruled out?
|
|
|
Post by adi on Jan 11, 2020 16:28:23 GMT
I think your anger is misplaced massively here. It’s not the fans watching who make the decisions on the rules. I'm not angry mate. My point was more about the fact that the person sitting in the stands hasn't got the first clue what is going on, yet when you're sitting at home watching, you do. The Premier league has been all about the armchair fan for years, and the most important people (or who should be the most important), keep getting shit on. Ah ok mate I see your point. It needs massively revamping but it’s going nowhere imo. Also it isn’t VAR’s fault that the handball rule has become ridiculous
|
|
|
Post by adi on Jan 11, 2020 16:30:19 GMT
The referee referees the game. He is human they make mistakes. VAR should be there to aid the referee not to do his job for him or be there to give the ref a cop out when he’s fucked up. He should only consult VAR sparingly when he’s completely unsure. This should be the standard. It would need referees players and managers to buy in it to it properly. If a goal is wrongly given or not given by the referee who believed at the time to be right you can’t have VAR used afterwards so a manager can come out and moan he got it it wrong. Can’t have it both ways. Bigger issues that would sort football out. Independent time keeping and mic-Iing the referees up would sort a lot of shit out The time wasting is a massive joke for me. I’d love a stopped clock or players made to go off for as long as they were down ‘injured’ just to stop it.
|
|
|
Post by PotterLog on Jan 11, 2020 16:43:00 GMT
Yeah and why would a neutral in an armchair want good goals routinely chalked off in games? The whole thing is such a dreadful misadventure Was it wrongfully ruled out? No, I don’t think it’s the issue that the decisions are technically right.
|
|
|
Post by adi on Jan 11, 2020 22:16:57 GMT
Was it wrongfully ruled out? No, I don’t think it’s the issue that the decisions are technically right. It’s just you said “good goals” as if to suggest they were achieved in a good and proper manner in accordance with the rules. My counter argument is that if the rules (whether appropriate or not) were broken then they can’t be “good goals”. I’d therefore suggest that your ire rests not with VAR but rather the institution that imposes the rules rather than that which enforces them.
|
|
|
Post by PotterLog on Jan 12, 2020 1:09:09 GMT
No, I don’t think it’s the issue that the decisions are technically right. It’s just you said “good goals” as if to suggest they were achieved in a good and proper manner in accordance with the rules. My counter argument is that if the rules (whether appropriate or not) were broken then they can’t be “good goals”. I’d therefore suggest that your ire rests not with VAR but rather the institution that imposes the rules rather than that which enforces them. I haven’t said anything to the contrary! I didn’t mean “good” goals like that exactly... But anyway it’s both really. The new handball rule is daft but the offside rule was never meant to be enforced the way VAR is doing it either.
|
|
|
Post by Malcolm Clarke on Jan 12, 2020 11:11:07 GMT
I haven't seen the incident so can't comment specifically, but I think you make an interesting point, which gets quite technical. The new handball interpretation doesn't allow for any discretion by the referee. If it hits the arm in a build-up to a goal it's disallowed. Whether it's "clear or obvious" - themselves terms which are very subjective - is not just, or even primarily, determined by whether the referee sees it. It might be very "clear" from a different angle to that which the ref had, which of course is why they have introduced VAR. It seems to me that there are three different aspects to handball - first - did it hit the arm or not, a matter of fact, which VAR can resolve. Second - was it 'intentional' - a concept which has always, long before cameras and VAR, caused great debates about meaning and interpretation (which is partly why they have now made it irrelevant if a goal is scored). Third - what were the CONSEQUENCES of the handball, i.e did it give a significant advantage. That has never been part of the rule, but I think maybe it should be ? I think that is the point you are making about "minor" isn't it ? That the contact with the arm didn't make any difference - as I say, I haven't seen it so can't comment in that respect on last night's incident. But the law at present doesn't allow that to be a factor, whether or not it is followed by a goal. Fair points, and a reasonable way of moving forward I would think. In the case of last night there is a definite consequence of a goal being scored because the ball hit the hand, but there is still room for an interpretation there, many things happened between the ball hitting the hand and the goal, so the goal is not a direct consequence of only the handball, but the handball does contribute to the goal. The point is. ultimately, this should be the decision of referee. We are trying to combine interpretation, i.e. subjectivity (which cannot, and probably, should not) be eradicated from the game, with objectivity. It proves, to me at least, that ultimately there is a subjective element to virtually everything (getting a bit deep here perhaps!) and things are ultimately more resolved when one accepts this. It's pretty obvious by now that most football fans, players and managers do not like this move towards trying to achieve total objectivity in the game, as it strives for improved decision-making, and I would say that is because it is not part of the culture of the game. For what it's worth having seen it last night on M of D, I think the handball, albeit unintentional, did enable the goal to be scored in that had it not hit his hand he wouldn't have been able to control the ball and set up the goal. In that sense both the new rule and VAR did what they were set up to do. But I have a lot of sympathy with what you are saying. What it boils down to whether the "gain" of improved accuracy in decision-making on the correct application of the laws, which VAR is definitely achieving in my view, is worth the "pain" of a negative impact on the experience for the match-going fans in the ground and the atmosphere in the ground - or to use your word, the "culture" of the game. The problem, as I said above, is that if it is now removed, TV pundits and fans will not be philosophical about decisions which are shown to be wrong and will continue to slate the officials. Perhaps sadly, we can never go back to my old days in the pub where we could argue all night with no way of resolving it.
|
|
|
Post by AlliG on Jan 12, 2020 12:12:48 GMT
I watched the last 10 minutes of the game on Friday night and it was obvious that VAR would result in the goal being disallowed, because as has been said, it proved that the ball made contact with the attacker's arm and by the current application of the Laws, that is handball.
My problem with VAR is around how it is applied to offside.
The Offside Law probably needs tweaking to define at what exact point the ball is "played" i.e. when the player makes contact or when the ball is no longer in contact with the player.
However, in the meantime VAR officials are trying to achieve 100% accuracy with offside but the problem is that offside is a measurement (or series of measurements) and as any scientist or engineer can tell you there is no such thing as a 100% accurate measurement and never will be.
It seems to me that the VAR officials don't understand either the limitations of the technology, how TV works or the Laws of Physics. (You cannot measure something to an accuracy of 1cm (which they seem to be trying) when there is an error of say +/- 10cm in the process)
In an offside decision there are usually at least 4 moving parts. The ball, the passer, the forward and the defender. (There are actually a lot more in that the various "parts that can score a goal" on the forward and defender also move at different speeds and in different directions relative to the player when they are moving e.g. in one frame the part nearest to the goal might be the big toe and in the next it might be the knee or the forehead).
Also, neither the ball (or the passer) are 100% "hard" and therefore when contact is first made with the ball, the ball will absorb some impact and deform around the boot/head etc before it leaves the boot/head etc and this action will occur over more than one frame during which time both forward and defender will also have moved slightly.
Obviously in TV movement is recorded in separate still shots and therefore the amount of movement that occurs between shots can be reduced by increasing the fps rate of the TV cameras.
However there is a technological and financial cost to increasing the fps rate from 50 to 100 to 200 etc which will act as a limit to improvement there and no matter what the rate there will still be movement that occurs between frames.
In cricket this is an obvious issue with run-outs and stumpings (where the bat can move 2 or 3 inches between frames) which is where "Umpires call" applies or the benefit of doubt is given to the batsman.
The VAR officials need to be told that there is nothing wrong with saying (even for offside) that the technology is not accurate enough to make a decision and that the on field decision stands.
|
|