VAR. I hate it. It is ludicrous that officials are determining offside by the position of an atom at the edge of a toenail, the furthermost tip of a hair, or some other nanoscopic extremity.
Ruling out Teemu Pukki’s goal against Spurs, and rendering Mario Vrancic’s sublime pass irrelevant, was crushingly dispiriting.
But I wasn’t surprised that such a moment happened.
For almost 30 years, in newspapers and TV and radio broadcasts, I argued against the introduction of technology into football matches. One of my oft-made contentions was that sterile science would wreck the passionate hurly-burly of matches.
But, let’s be properly informed about what is happening and why we have arrived at the current craziness. Otherwise, our rants can seem like mad howls at the moon.
Let’s start with how a Video Assistant Ref uses technology to review a potential offside.
First, the VAR has to decide the moment to look at. Law 11 says offsides concern “the moment the ball is played or touched by a team-mate”. So the VAR stops the replay of the action at the very beginning of that moment.
I always believed that it wouldn’t be possible to determine that instant with precision. But with cutting-edge systems, it is — pretty much.
There is a tiny amount of possible error, but, just as in tennis and cricket (in which the trajectory of the ball is guessed by computer programmes), that degree of error has been accepted because it is so small. After all, it is much, much smaller than the degree of error when humans rely on their own eyes and minds.
Next, the VAR has to mark the position of the part of the relevant attacker which is nearest to the goal-line. And then do the same with the defender.
The VAR ignores the hands and arms (because you can touch the ball legally with any part of your body other than hands and arms).
But the picture we all see — with red and blue lines drawn across the pitch and dotted lines ascending to the relevant players — is not the image the VAR uses.
All Premier League pitches have been “mapped” by taking a huge number of images and measurements to create 3D computer models. The computer model of, say, Carrow Road, enables any point on or above the pitch to be meticulously marked by manoeuvring a grid and creating crosshairs in the appropriate place. (Sometimes TV shows that process happening, briefly, during the initial phase of the off-side check).
If the VAR, using the 3D model’s crosshairs, identifies bit of a foot on the ground as the foremost part of the relevant player, the system generates a line across the image of the pitch from that point. If the foremost part of the player is above the ground, the computer produces a vertical line to the ground and then generates the line across the pitch on the ground.
At this stage all the lines being looked at — the grid, the crosshairs and the vertical lines — are only the width of a single pixel. As soon as the two lines across the pitch have been placed (denoting the position of the two relevant body parts) it is apparent to the VAR which line is nearer the goal-line. That is when the much thicker red and blue lines and dotted vertical lines are superimposed so that they are clearly visible on TV screens.
The 3D computer model takes into account the fact that the image being looked at will seldom be at a right angle to the pitch. So, to the human eye, the vertical lines do not always look perpendicular. It can also appear that the crosshairs have not been placed on the correct body part — that a player’s head might be further forward than his knee, for instance, and yet the knee is being used as the definitive body part. The thicker lines inevitably look closer to each other than the pixel-wide lines and the vertical dotted lines often look wonky.
According to the geeks who devised the software, though, they are correct. Our eyes are deceiving us, or our minds are ignoring parallax.
Another problem is that the dotted lines frequently seem to be pinpointing an armpit, whereas in many of those instances the area being considered by the VAR is part of the chest, immediately above the point where the dotted line has ended.
None of this explains why on earth the VAR is looking at infinitesimally small points on the outer periphery of bodies.
That is happening because, for all the decades that I was arguing against the introduction of technology in football, TV replays in super slo-mo and from countless angles were creating the impression — bogus to my mind — that referees make lots of mistakes. The cacophony of criticism became so loud that the game couldn’t hear anything else. It drowned out reason and debate.
Technology became inevitable because everyone, even (eventually) referees themselves, came to believe that it would offer precision and accuracy.
Offsides are the most difficult judgement match officials have to make. They require an assistant ref to watch two places at once (the pass and the player it is aimed at) and assess fast-moving peoples’ changing positions relative to each other.
Errors about offside can win or lose matches. They can decide relegations and titles.
So, everyone assumed, introducing accuracy into deciding offsides would be A GOOD THING.
Law 11 says: “A player is in an offside position if any part of the head, body or feet is in the opponents’ half (excluding the halfway line) and any part of the head, body or feet is nearer to the opponents’ goal line than both the ball and the second-last opponent. The hands and arms of all players, including the goalkeepers, are not considered.”
So the only logical, fair way in which a VAR system can be implemented is to precisely determine if any part of the head, body, feet … and so on.
Don’t blame the law, either. It’s not possible to frame a law which says “most of the body must be nearer the goal-line”. Imagine the arguments about cases involving slightly more or less of the body.
If you tried to say “half the body must be nearer the goal-line” we’d need ten minutes of computer analysis of the image and mathematical calculations.
This doesn’t exonerate the Premier League, though. They decided to tweak the FIFA protocols on the use of technology. FIFA state that a VAR can only become involved “in the event of a ‘clear and obvious error’ or ‘serious missed incident’.” It was the Premier League who decided that offside (and encroaching at penalties) should always be checked and ruled on by the VAR.
And if the current uproar forces alterations to how technology is used, those changes must not be made mid-season. Otherwise, someone will score a Pukki-esque goal against us and it will be allowed to stand. For consistency and fairness, the madness has to be allowed to continue until the end of the season.
Then, perhaps, another part of law 11 will be thought about and applied. The bit that says: “A player is not in an offside position if level with the second-last opponent or last two opponents”. It could perhaps be an unwritten agreement that if only my toenail is in front of yours, we’re still level.
But that would be ignoring the letter of the law, which is problematic if we want the rest of the laws applied consistently.
So here’s a radical proposal.
Let the on-field refs and their assistants — highly trained, highly prepared, highly skilled and utterly neutral — make their best possible judgements and get on with the world’s most popular game.
Will never happen taking a step back will prove all the powers that pushed for this system were wrong, Human errors were unacceptable but tech errors can be accepted
0
We need to be careful about the use of the term ‘slow-mo’ or ‘slow motion’ and not confusing that with Frame-by-Frame analysis.
For the last three decades pundits have almost certainly moved frame-by-frame, usually at 24fps (frames per second) through their footage. At the speed of a match that’s no where near enough fps for accuracy when body parts are moving so fast.
VAR uses 50fps – 120fps* , which is better, but still far below what’s needed. Consider that my 3 year old iPhone does 240fps and the cameras used for 100m sprints is 10,000fps, it’s clearly not up to par.
That coupled with distance and camera resolution, the idea of accuracy is farcical to me.
*I read 50fps for PL, but 120fps was used for the world cup. Not sure if PL utilized the 120fps.
2
I was in favour of the introduction of this technology believing that it would take the human error out of contentious decisions. Having seen it in practice it is not delivering any benefits to the game in general. It is always good to strive to change things for the better and that process should continue, but not with the current criteria used. Until a better system that is more user friendly and administered in a more consistent way by the official in charge actually at the game then this experiment should be mothballed.
0
Perhaps Graeme Souness makes a good point when he says if any part of the attacker is onside then he can’t be ruled offside. Just needs a small change to the law. Doesn’t stop VAR being looked at but it will bring an end to the number of goals being ruled out.
0
I think VAR has shown that on the whole, Prem refs and linos are very good – despite what countless pundits would have you believe.
The officials themselves are generally making the correct calls. Off the top of my head, I can only think of one really poor on-field decision which VAR correctly overruled – an Arsenal player flagged offside at Old Trafford, despite being about five yards on, who thankfully ignored the flag and went on to score.
So I agree with a lot of what Mick says, but I feel there should be no going back now, the technology is there, let’s work out how to use it properly.
Would also like to see refs using the pitch-side monitors more – I can fully understand why they don’t want to do this, but they seem far too beholden to the VAR officials right now.
0
A major problem with the way VAR is used in the Premier League is that Law 5 states: “Each match is controlled by a referee who has full authority to enforce the Laws of the Game in connection with the match. The decisions of the referee regarding facts connected with play, including whether or not a goal is scored and the result of the match, are final.”
The decisions of the referee now are final-ish because with VAR they are not necessarily his decisions. But, of course, they could be. Mike Riley, the referees’ chief, instructs his officials not to check the pitch-side monitor themselves as (I think) every other country using VAR does. Then the referee could decide whether any initial mistake has been made as per Law 5 rather than a third party. Riley’s refusal to relax this is ridiculously stubborn, unpopular and unjustifiable, putting him in, it appears, a minority of one.
I believe, properly used (ie Lallana’s non-handball v Wolves) will benefit the game. Interestingly, and I am not sure why, when home teams are involved in European competition or internationals, the almost daily VAR outcry for Premier League matches is rarely heard.
I do not necessarily think it is the best idea to have current referees in charge of VAR. While not doubting their integrity or impartiality, this system leaves itself open to a “boys club” accusation. Recently retired referees, whose knowledge of the Laws remains, may be a better fit for VAR duties.
VAR was, of course, introduced in the wake of continued criticism of referees – fuelled by the advent of social media – in an effort to eliminate as much as possible on-field human errors made from one angle in the heat of battle. Now, those voices want VAR scrapped to presumably going back to slagging off the ref as before.
Your explanation of the offside Law guidance was forensic, yet despite a few tweaks it remains the Law that puzzles and angers the most. Many Law changes have benefited the game greatly; maybe there is no “perfect” fit for offside, but it is to be hoped IFAB can find a way to help everyone when FIFA’s law-making body meets in a couple of months.
0
The Pukki “goal” was not a clear and obvious error. If it had been, then the Spurs players and management would have been crowding the linesman and referee. Instead, the players accepted the on-field officials decision, and were preparing to restart from a centre kick-off, and that is a very rare event.
The point about using current referees made by Christopher Davies above (no relation) is a good one, particularly as the one on Saturday was the same one as we had on pitch for the Villa game, and who Daniel Farke crossed swords with only a couple of days prior to Saturday’s game.
0
And the same ref that obstructed John Fleck which led to Man City’s first goal against Sheff Utd on Sunday.
0
What exactly do they mean by “clear & obvious”, and how far back will they go??
Surely a throw-in obviously given the wrong way which results in a goal to the team gifted the throw-in should be taken into consideration??
Also, with the Pukki non-goal, from all the pictures I’ve seen, either the red or blue superimposed line(s) could easily apply to either player.
The referee, his assistant, and ALL the Spurs players we quite happy with the goal, only for it to be chalked off for the most bizarre reason heard in football this season so far……
Oh; and the referee who gave the throw-in wrongly and subsequently booked Farke for pointing out HIS error just happened to be the VAR official who disallowed Pukki’s goal and Vrancic’s sublime assist.
Sorry Mick, but with facts like that I will never believe that the current crop of referees are totally impartial. I thought Hooper was bad, but this guy really takes the biscuit!
They and “the establishment” just want little old Norwich there amongst them for the least possible time. It’s now probably too late, but I really do hope that against all the odds and officials, somehow we manage to avoid relegation.
O T B C
1
Mick, the whole VAR debate is a sideshow to the real issue of the poor standard of officiating. VAR has highlighted this. They still get decisions wrong even when they’ve watched countless replays. The technology isn’t accurate enough to judge millimetre offsides but as you say it was hamfisted Englishness that decided this would be right. The protocols they have drawn up were doomed from the start. FGMOL is self serving and self protective. Judging someone offside by 1mm, whilst ignoring shirt pulling, pushing in the box and deliberate time wasting is ludicrous. But this isn’t VAR- this is the same English officialdom you always are at pains to defend.
0
Human errors are and always have been part of life. Football is no different. Players make mistakes, Linos do, Managers do, Boards do, so too Refs. Though quite possibly they make the least of all.
Many of us said last summer VAR would be a disaster. Not many thought quite how bad it would be though. Scrap it now! If you want to eliminate all mistakes, you kill the human element and ultimately the sport
0
Surely when discussions were on going in sorting out a VAR system which will .be the best fit for football other systems should have been looked at A good example is TMO as used in the rugby world cup where every supporter could hear the talk between the referee and TMO and more Importantly see the footage that determined the decision Also it was at the referees instigation that a referral would be made and everyone seems happy with decision and how it was made We at norwich have no idea what was seen or said as there are no screens showing the incident and it leaves fans begrudgingly accepting the decision without proof of what they had seen and how they came to that decision
My answer to this is as arms should not be included if the feet are onside so be it but in all cases of a player running at speed his head would be projected forward and he cannot score with his head if his feet are not up with him so to speak
So the criterion should be were his feet offside as under the present law arms do not count but inmost case thr head would also be in line withe arm…if that makes sense
0
Good article Mick and I agree but on the tech my understanding is that the margin for error is acknowledged to be up to 30-40cm. This being the case it’s clear it’s not fit for purpose to rule out goals such as Pukkis.
0
For Jim and John – it is a common misconception that Clear and Obvious errors applies to offside. It actually doesn’t. They are checked for goals and are rules on a onside/offside basis. No clear and obvious applies.
It’s surprising how many pundits don’t know this.
0