I mean, they’re consistent in applying the technology terribly and obeying fraction of centimetre judgements from technology that really isn’t meant to be used that way, yeah.
3 Likes
Haha you may well be right tbh mate. I honestly make most of my VAR comments under the heat of a specific decision so it’s likely I’m gonna be quite irrational with my comments.
If I go back and look at stuff in hindsight with the emotion out of my system I may be agreeing with you. But on a vague think about it, I for some reason think I can recall VAR incorrectly awarding decisions on hairline margins? (I may have made this up in fairness haha)
1 Like
The amount of bollocks.
It’s all about willingness to implement the technology the right way and all that philiosophical garbage that Ms. Daisy here spouts amounts for nothing.
We can train an AI to drive a car in a busy road filled with other cars & pedestrian but an AI capable of making an offside call?
how ludicrous!
China can deploy facial recognition CCTVs all around the massive city to predict & control any suspicious activity, but god forbid if similar technology can be used to deem whether a contact was made or not.
Bit sick of simpletons now.
But can we? Gonna hugely go off topic here but definitely not quite as straight forward when lives are a consequence of AI decisions. Hence a lot of ‘philosophical garbage’ as you refer to it is undisputably critical.
I’m far from an IT expert but philosophy is a huge driver in programming effective and accurate AI systems. Max Tegmark did a great explanation on this with the ‘Trolley Problem’ theory. How do you program a car to pick the lesser evil of two in a crisis? It’s all philosophy. We’ll hear a lot about this once the first occurence of a driverless car incident occurs.
Hard to use that as a measuring stick to criticise VAR. In fact it should be the other way around, to benchmark the difficulties in getting driverless cars right.
1 Like
How many sensors and cameras are needed on one car to allow this. How many would be needed to allow a fully automated system in a small town or a big city.
How many would it take in a football stadium? Will the same system work in The Emirates that works in Goodison Park?
It’s all well and good to say these things are doable, it’s a hell of a difference in actually doing them.
Plenty of real-life implementation does infer from philosophy, for instance, Theoretical Physics has a huge influence on experimental physics.
But the kind of philosophical garbage I was referring to was that woman’s dismissal of the VAR.
VAR undermines the legitimacy of human judgement without replacing it with anything better. Far from removing arbitrary human judgement, VAR simply emphasises just how arbitrary it is.
The risk is that football’s intrinsic simplicity is unsustainable in an era of technological complexity. Attempts to get more right decisions will unravel the consensus on which the game is based & reveal the essential absurdity of our obsession with it.
What VAR reveals is that for decades we have all been relying on a great deal of tacit knowledge in the interpretation of football’s rules. ‘Clear and obvious’ is not clear and obvious. Even handball, the rule that practically defines the game, is not obvious.
In any field you can think of, technology is bad at solving problems which require tacit knowledge: that is, knowledge of all those things that exist, but that cannot be codified.
The problem is with the implementation of VAR, rather than VAR’s capability
- If VAR cannot be applied to determine the intent of handball, don’t use it for that. Use it for an alert of potential handballs which previously refs used to miss out.
- Currently VAR footage is being reviewed by the naked eye to check if there is an offside decision. An AI can do it automatically within milliseconds without someone reviewing the footage. Look at goal-line technology.
With computer vision based AI, reliance on sensors are minimised.
Both driverless car & city surveillance works on footage gained from the cameras, which we are already collecting in a football match.
My Head Of Global Development 
Arsène Wenger uses Fifa role to propose new offside law amid marginal VAR calls
Obviously it is still open to the millimetre pedantry, but in general a rule change to favour attackers is good.
I look forward to this lovely proposal being thoroughly rejected by FIFA.
1 Like
I don’t know if this favours attackers as such.
Not sure if the millimeter of consideration is given to attackers if the part of body is head or feet.
Also Sterling will never be offside
No.
Honestly such proposal sounds really dumb to me. Attackers will have huge advantages. Imagine Erling Haaland’s onside backheel, while his whole body is 2 metres ahead of the defender (I’m sure he can stretch out that much).
If this proposal is accepted, football will change dramatically, to the point that offside calls barely exist. Team would sit so deep that the football becomes unbearable to watch.
I just want common sense. If they can’t see after a couple of looks that it’s offside, then give it on. None of this drawing lines up to armpits shit.
6 Likes
I worry this will just continue over new but essentially the same issues. Hope to be wrong if it’s implemented.
Ofc the solution for var is not to change the rules but to have the main fucking ref look at the situations then make the decisions wonder how many decades of random trial and error it’ll take them to figure that out.
1 Like
Only took them a full season but great they are finally gonna use it how everyone else does and not there own made up version
2 Likes
Think VAR will be a lot less of a talking point next season based on all that.
1 Like
So where sticking with VAR invented offside rule. Just not highlighting the nonsense and stopping the ridicule by sheepish acceptance. Great.
1 Like
Var could work if we fixed a couple rules. I hate the GK coming off his line rule, it’s already hard enough to save a pen the keeper shouldn’t be penalized for that. And second the hand ball in the box thing. When a defender gets hit in the hand and knows nothing about it, that should never be a pen. Only pen should be a clear extended arm with intent. It’s such a hard rule to enforce but like for example a ball coming in from a cross gets knocked around and lands on a defenders hand who happens to be in a jumping motion with his arm raised, by the letter of the law is a pen. That seems harsh to me.
1 Like
Yeah correct. They’ve changed the rule too accommodate the gimmick. Fucking ridiculous. Only good thing for now is you wont have fans standing around for 3 or 4 minutes wondering if the should celebrate a goal or not.
1 Like
I agree with much of what you say (weird) but as long as the rules are applied consistently I don’t care what the actual rules are.
1 Like
Wish they accommodated this but glad they are learning from the issues we observed this season.