[Atomic]

To be honest Atomic looking at it again i thought it was more ball to hand. Pep managed to get away with his sarcastic 'Thank you so much' comments to the officials.

Well there you have it Gerry we disagree and if we disagree then you are always going to find officials that disagree unless you have a clear black and white situation i.e. hits a hand / arm it's handball no matter what. If you go down that route you open up more cans of worms (player deliberately kicks ball at hand from a yard etc) .....

So again what is the point?

[Political Cake]

I thought it was for obvious mistakes and errors only. How on earth can millimetres be classed as an error/mistake god only knows, if its a foot offside fair enough. Yes its difficult for linesmen as it is but these marginal decisions are part and parcel of the game, win some lose some - just get on with it ffs

At the moment:
"Factual decisions such as whether a player is onside or offside, or inside or outside the penalty area, will not be subject to the clear and obvious test."  (from PL's VAR protocol)

They decided (as they must) to make it the same definite, binary result à la if the ball has entered the goal.
The Book says this is absolutely correct, of course. Someone is either onside or offside... the only 'marginality' is about how well you're able to see it!

Mind you - it is a lot more difficult to see offside correctly compared to a static goal-line and a ball. I'd quite like there to be room for manoeuvre but the old thought that "benefit should be given to the attacking team" was nonsense that never existed in the Laws and probably came from some Rugby or, more likely, from referees themselves as you MUST be certain the offence has occurred for you to give it. It is hard to correctly call a near offside.

When you introduce these god-like all-seeing powers, you're effectively making ARs more redundant as the things they will assist with (except fouls) and can be 'looked at' by the VAR are factual decisions. So what are you left with? Calling throw-ins, corners and goal kicks?

So I guess there are two feasible solutions:
  - Change how video is used for offsides (involving a margin of error, contentious with the above, but workable with automated technology eventually)
  - Change Law 11 (Offside). Not like this hasn't been done before for the good of the game.

My main issue with VAR is that surely offside can be computer generated with a Hawkeye type system? This as opposed to some 2nd rate ref trying to do geometry on a laptop himself.

This is... tricky. The goal line is stationary, any particular 'offside line' can continuously change position. What they use for now is calibrated really very well with many cameras in a stadium, admittedly. I've seen them placing fake limbs, heads and football boots on stands to make sure it's working correctly!
All it needs is someone to correctly identify what parts of two specific people (or the ball!) is closest to the goal line; that's the bit we haven't automated successfully yet.

Bear in mind, all of your otherwise successful HawkEye developments all use ball-tracking alone (the DRS in cricket, goal decisions here, line calls in tennis, points in hurling, etc). Trying to determine offside, however, is usually without having the consider where the ball is! You need all of:
 - the moment the ball was struck (and knowing the 'correct' person did it)
 - which part of the specific attacker in question is closest to the goal line
    - and then the perpendicular plane that point makes with the pitch (I hope the field is level..)
    - So you need to first identify, then triangulate; not the other way round. Trial and error, basically, until you exhaust possibilities.
 - repeat for the part of the specific second defender closest to the goal line (don't forget we're not counting arms...!)
...and suddenly this doesn't sound very easy at all.

It can be done but it's generally not very accurate thus far... it was easier (and quicker!!) to get a human to pick the relevant parts.
Ask seismologists about picking first arrivals on a seismograph; it's really a simple thing if I'm honest, but it took ages and a LOT of investment to make it feasible for computers back in the day.
To demonstrate this very well, we haven't seen one yet, but a near offside decision determined by the halfway line will be decided ultra-fast in comparison. I reckon if the VAR is given an arbitrary margin for error with offsides, you'd see it being done automatically pretty soon...

Also; the Premier League actually contract HawkEye to survey and implement the technology already. So if they're supposedly the industry leaders - why haven't they innovated this yet? (They've come up with some good stuff on this end very recently, to be fair)

All the game needed was goal-line technology, the raw emotion of celebrating a goal, bemoaning a refereeing decision and the fast-paced element of a football has been destroyed.

I agree.
I'm not enthralled the application of VAR as it will stand this season. It's too slow. It's difficult to show the accuracy regarding offsides. The only real point of it was to try to protect referees. What it's actually doing is making people realise the game isn't as nice as they thought it was. People generally need things to blame and suddenly, if it's not the referees in the middle, what's it going to be? IFAB are stubborn on this.


What would I do if we really DID want video assistance? (Oh man; ignoring IFAB and FIFA, giving full power to change...)
 - I'd make the VAR only chirp up automatically if it's a missed incident or mistaken identity (ie; the two BIG ones that must never happen).
 - I assume we're all happy with goal-line technology as it's shown with nice graphics, is identified almost immediately, and its accuracy is known.
 - I'd like the assistance for offside changed as above, when it's ready. Automated, out of people's hands, decent margin of doubt, make it decided in less than 15 seconds.
 - For 'everything else' which is contentious, let's make the fourth official more useful. A nominated person (ie; manager etc) can ask them for the referee to review some big incident himself with VAR assistance, the next time the ball is out of play / neutral, and before play is next restarted. In effect, being allowed to 'challenge' a big decision. Maybe give one chance without being incorrect.

I'd suggest that, while this would give the coaches more excuse to time waste, it would crucially put more weight on THEM rather than the referees, freeing up the rest of the game to be run as normal. Fans would know it's the manager responsible for questioning the decision and causing the stoppage and not some extra official far away from the ground. After all, we see the managers barracking the fourth official pretty much constantly don't we...

Making the referee, as a result, step up to have a look again themselves will allow the fans to easily re-understand who to jeer and who to celebrate again. Referees will always be villains to everyone, but now coaches can also take acclaim or ignominy from the sidelines.

Any decision not really questioned until much later or even after the game isn't really worth it - that's what we expect from the game. While this won't remove all the arguments about what's a foul and what's not (which will never go away), it would at least remove the horrible bit of VAR we seem to not like about it 'taking over the game' and introduce a different, more positive drama which the teams themselves can attempt to play it. This would surely be more fitting for a supposedly entertaining elite sport?

Other ideas include stuff like allowing the discussion between referees to be heard and to show what's being looked at to the crowd (again, IFAB have been ultra-negative towards this for fear of negative reactions in dodgy crowds). I'd also introduce changes to how the game is timed but that's enough for now...

Needs to be canned for a while until the FA / League sort it out.

One final note is very important right now - how it's done for the rest of the season cannot now be materially changed without it being unfair on the league. Its use was agreed at the start and its use should not be changed until after the conclusion. SO they're stuck with it.

I hope, come May, fans will long to return to just having the referee alone to contend with, rather than shadow eyes elsewhere...

[seteefeet]

The only way VAR can work, from a fan's perspective, is to be quick. If it takes 4/5 minutes to make a decision it kills the atmosphere, even if 100% accurate (which it doesn't appear it can be, in it's current form).
As I said before, limit the check to 30 seconds, which, if it is a clear and obvious error, should be enough. If not, get on with the game.
If you get the decision you are ecstatic, if you don't you are fired up, either way it would enhance the atmosphere rather than destroy it.
As the technology improves they can look at making it more accurate, but for now, this would suffice as it should capture someone who's a yard offside or a clear penalty. If it's debatable, get on with the game and we can argue about it in the pub after the final whistle.

[MarkW]

Great post, Political Cake. I have a question you may be able to answer. Actually the question comes in two parts.

First, is the instance when the lines are drawn for offside the point when the ball and the attacker make first make contact, or the final point of contact with the attacker? I mean, if an attacker "scooped" the ball using their foot, when are the lines draw?

Second, rather than drawing the lines on relatively manually, I wonder if Machine Learning or similar could be used to create a translucent plane that starts at the goal line and moves towards the halfway line. After it passes each defender it changes colour, so as it moves past the goalkeeper it changes, and then approaches the defender/attacker, you can see which parts of the body break the plane, and then it might be easier to distinguish if a player is on or offside.

[Adder]

To be honest Atomic looking at it again i thought it was more ball to hand. Pep managed to get away with his sarcastic 'Thank you so much' comments to the officials.

Got  to say, due to him being a reasonable distance from Silva and the ball not going that quickly he should have had loads of time to react and pull his arm away....if anything his arm twitched closer to the line of the ball. These are young highly tuned athletes who should have pretty speedy reactions.

[TheJacko2000]

It came off Silva's hand so makes no difference, would have been overturned by VAR due to accidental handball in build up.

[hardtobeat]

It came off Silva's hand so makes no difference, would have been overturned by VAR due to accidental handball in build up.

Apparently not if the penalty had been given but yes if  Trent Arnold hadn't handled and City had gone onto score !!

[alex1]

Watching a fair amount of Bundesliga, I don't think I've yet seen a decision made by the VAR officials. They give the initial buzz in the ref's ear, but its the ref who then goes over to the monitor at the side of the pitch and makes the decision. The monitors are usually some distance from the coaching staff. That system does seem to cut down the amount of delay and everyone knows the ref has taken responsibility for the decision.

[Hunnington Baggie]

Watching a fair amount of Bundesliga, I don't think I've yet seen a decision made by the VAR officials. They give the initial buzz in the ref's ear, but its the ref who then goes over to the monitor at the side of the pitch and makes the decision. The monitors are usually some distance from the coaching staff. That system does seem to cut down the amount of delay and everyone knows the ref has taken responsibility for the decision.

they started with the same system as us and the Germans HATED it. I believe the Italians like the default system though.

[Adder]

Watching a fair amount of Bundesliga, I don't think I've yet seen a decision made by the VAR officials. They give the initial buzz in the ref's ear, but its the ref who then goes over to the monitor at the side of the pitch and makes the decision. The monitors are usually some distance from the coaching staff. That system does seem to cut down the amount of delay and everyone knows the ref has taken responsibility for the decision.

Yes that is the only sensible way as far as I'm concerned. The match ref has to take far more overall responsibility which means he has to view it again.

[Albionic]

A bit off piste, but does anyone else share my grudging admiration for Germany, from VAR to absorbing east Germany it just seems like they make sensible decisions and get on with implementation, whereas .....

[MarkW]

A bit off piste, but does anyone else share my grudging admiration for Germany, from VAR to absorbing east Germany it just seems like they make sensible decisions and get on with implementation, whereas .....

Don't want this going too off topic, but not always:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-48527308

[johnnyg]

Another completely farcical decision in tonights game.  Complete shambles at this stage.
New rules ?? FFS, the whole VAR system should be ****** out completely.
Its ruining the game.

[gazberg]

They just need to apply common sense to these decisions. Then it would be really useful but at the moment it's a sham.

[beechyboy90]

They just need to apply common sense to these decisions. Then it would be really useful but at the moment it's a sham.

Only way it can work is make it like the cricket and number the amount of reviews each game.

Probably help tidying up handball and offside rules as they are both shockingly bad and vague

[gazberg]

I think it's been said that for offside next year there has to be clear daylight rather than a computer saying '1mm off -no goal' so that should improve that.

Also yes the handballs need to be reviewed by the referees as they are the match officials, they should have final say. No way could Rice get out of the way of that so to scrub out that goal is insane.

[Baggies]

Another completely farcical decision in tonights game.  Complete shambles at this stage.
New rules ?? FFS, the whole VAR system should be ****** out completely.
Its ruining the game.

VAR was perfectly in the right tonight though.

You could change VAR all you want, bring in a cricket/hockey style review system, create a thicker offside line, remove offside from VAR's jurisdiction completely or give the advantage to the attacking team on borderline decisions, but tonight, the ball hit Declan Rice's arm/hand and bounced perfectly in front of him and West Ham benefited from it. The FA made the law based on the Boly decision last season and I agree with them.

If the law was not in place, and the goal had stood, everyone would have pointed out the handball. The FA can't win.

[Standaman]

Entering the VAR debate for the 1st time here. As with everything new it takes time for it to settle and a lot of the noise around the subject is made by empty vessels that as we are all aware of make the most noise.

With half a season gone I think there are 3 key issues.

1. To what extent VAR referees the game

The doctrine of "Clear and Obvious Error" was meant to keep VAR interventions to a minimum. This begs the question what is a clear a "Clear and Obvious Error". Well if it takes 6 replays from 3 different angles to sort it out it is not a clear and obvious error. However as the season has progressed the bar has been lowered because Managers and pundits with the benefit of the aforementioned replays or in the case of Managers looking for something to deflect attention from their teams performance have complained about VAR not picking up incidents.

2. The laws of the game in a VAR world

The offside rule has not changed but in the pre VAR world there were countless goals that were technically offside that were not disallowed because no assistant referee could spot a forward's big toe being slightly ahead of the defender when the ball was played at a distance of 25 yards. Now of course we have a technology that can and the rule is black and white it is implemented and we don't like it.

The other major controversy seems to be handball. Again this is something that is more likely to be picked up by VAR than a ref working in real time but it is compounded by taking an interpretive rule i.e. handball being deemed as being a foul if it was deliberate and turning it into an absolute rule but only on one side of the play which is a bad rule, but if it is a black and white rule you want and you back it up with VAR this is the outcome you are going to get.

3. The fan experience.

I have not watched a VAR game live. Generally on TV I am watching games with little or no emotional investment and as such VAR has barely impacted on my enjoyment of the game. TV commentators wittering on about it endlessly is irritating but then again picking apart refereeing decisions was equally irritating in the pre VAR world but someone invented the TV mute button for a reason. 

In stadium is a different kettle of fish. As ever the communication to the fans in the ground  is lacking and the time delays in decisions takes a lot of the spontaneity out of the experience.   

How to proceed?

Scrap it but in doing so acknowledge that refs make mistakes that a lot of the rules of the game are interpretive and stop dissecting every decision they make from 10 different angles in super slow motion. Move on accept you don't want to lose the flow of the game you might have wanted perfection in decision making but now you have it you don't like it.

Too much time and effort has been invested in this and football authorities won't want to lose face so in all likelihood we are stuck with it.

To improve matters they need to retreat back to the doctrine of "Clear and Obvious". So offsides are only overruled if it could be spotted by officials in real time so Pukki's big toe at 25 yards is not ruled out. The VAR ref has one replay and if they can't say on that replay then they don't overrule the on pitch official. As a separate issue they need to make up their mind on handball either it is interpretive or absolute, but that rule needs to be applied to both defenders and attackers and all parts of the pitch.

If there were fewer interventions then VAR would have less of an impact on the fans in the stadium but where there is a VAR decision there needs to be better communications.

[BaggieBoy04]

After Tonight get rid of it Clearly biased

[BoingFlyer]

How VAR decisions have affected every Premier League club in 2020-21 website: https://www.espn.co.uk/football/english-premier-league/story/4182135/how-var-decisions-affected-every-premier-league-club-in-2020-21

As expected we are one of the clubs with the biggest loss from VAR, the other unexpectedly is Liverpool.

[Droitwich Baggie]

Referees chief, Howard Webb is calling a meeting for Premier League officials after offside errors.

[Bilston Dan]

I don't know why they cant use VAR like they use the DRS system in cricket. You have a limited number of times you can use it, though maybe there are too many moving parts...I dunno.

[Barrington]

Firstly, it just needs to be manned by better quality operators. I think our referees have had long enough now and have proved to be incompetent or potentially corrupt. Get rid of the idea of on-field referees also operating VAR when they're not doing on-field officiating. Employ (on a good wage) a panel of people whose only job is to work in a VAR room, so they have no affiliation with the referees on the pitch. After (or during) each game when a VAR decision is made that overturns an on-field decision, the VAR panel explain how they came to the decision for transparency purposes. Anyone on the panel found to have made 2 major errors in a certain period of time is permanently eliminated from the panel, losing their job. There needs to be accountability and transparency.

Secondly, this 'clear and obvious error' rubbish needs to stop. It just needs to be that if VAR look at a passage of play, they just make a black and white decision on what the correct decision is. It shouldn't matter what the on-field referee has or hasn't decided on. Absolutely no need for this 'clear and obvious error' stuff apart from to occasionally save face of the referees. It can lead to inconsistency in decisions by VAR from one game to the next on identical in game incidents. VAR should be there to just get the correct decision no matter what the on-field referee has already decided.

Thirdly (is that even a thing), if an offside decision is so close that it's almost impossible to get a 100% correct decision, the benefit of the doubt goes to the attacking player.

[Adder]

Firstly, it just needs to be manned by better quality operators. I think our referees have had long enough now and have proved to be incompetent or potentially corrupt. Get rid of the idea of on-field referees also operating VAR when they're not doing on-field officiating. Employ (on a good wage) a panel of people whose only job is to work in a VAR room, so they have no affiliation with the referees on the pitch. After (or during) each game when a VAR decision is made that overturns an on-field decision, the VAR panel explain how they came to the decision for transparency purposes. Anyone on the panel found to have made 2 major errors in a certain period of time is permanently eliminated from the panel, losing their job. There needs to be accountability and transparency.

Secondly, this 'clear and obvious error' rubbish needs to stop. It just needs to be that if VAR look at a passage of play, they just make a black and white decision on what the correct decision is. It shouldn't matter what the on-field referee has or hasn't decided on. Absolutely no need for this 'clear and obvious error' stuff apart from to occasionally save face of the referees. It can lead to inconsistency in decisions by VAR from one game to the next on identical in game incidents. VAR should be there to just get the correct decision no matter what the on-field referee has already decided.

Thirdly (is that even a thing), if an offside decision is so close that it's almost impossible to get a 100% correct decision, the benefit of the doubt goes to the attacking player.

That's reasonable enough.....the tricky one is point 2 though. Firstly both cricket and rugby use the on-field decision and reasons to overrule it in certain circumstances - cricket when it's a question of whether it's a clean catch i.e. the ball hasn't hit the ground first (umpire gives on-field 'soft signal' DRS checks if there is clear evidence to overturn that soft signal). In rugby, decisions on grounding the ball properly for tries - the ref will give the on-field decision and the TMO will look for definite reasons for over-turning the on-field decision.
In football you just can't get away from the fact that there will always be some decisions where individual interpretation comes into it e.g was there contact ? or was there enough contact for the attacker to go down ? Here the ref and on-field officials are the only ones with a 3D view of things (assuming there's been a good view of the incident). VAR have the 2D nature of TV screens. They may have multiple angles but in some cases even that is inconclusive (and there's the pressure for some speed in the decision). It's hard to imagine rules where there won't be some inconsistency in these types of decision and I think it does make sense for VAR to look for clear and obvious evidence to overturn the on-field decision.