VAR Freeze Frame

[Blue_Britain]

I'm not disputing the red card yesterday, but I have wondered for a while now why the first thing the Ref views on the monitor is a still image of the contact??

If that's the first thing you see, you're pretty much decided there and then that it's now a red. Regardless of circumstances, force etc.

 

[muttley]

Like everything else up here, it can be manipulated to ensure the desired outcome.

 

[BertsEBT]

I think it's because a still image captures the point of contact

 

[Hurricane Run]

Its funny you bring this up. For the avoidance of doubt, its a stonewall red. But i agree. I dont even think they should be allowed slow motion replays because it affects the referees perspective.

Different for handballs etc, where you need to check where a contact is made. But a tackle should only be replayed at normal speed and without freezeframes. In my opinion, of course

 

[Blue_Britain]

I think it's because a still image captures the point of contact

Of course but should not be the first thing the Ref view's as I've said. It should be viewed at normal speed first and the rest laterally.

 

[WinkieWATP]

Of course but should not be the first thing the Ref view's as I've said. It should be viewed at normal speed first and the rest laterally.

Imo it should only be shown at real speed because anything else isn’t what actually happened is it?

It was a red card all day long yesterday. As soon as they showed the first replay I said oh he’s off here.

 

[douzpwa]

I'm not disputing the red card yesterday, but I have wondered for a while now why the first thing the Ref views on the monitor is a still image of the contact??

If that's the first thing you see, you're pretty much decided there and then that it's now a red. Regardless of circumstances, force etc.

If we were all treated the same it doesn't matter! I thought it was a red right away I also thought it was a 40/60 ball to be won in their favour and could not believe a nothing ball like that could spark some fight into Lundstram wish he could explain to us all his moment of idiocy?

 

[looway]

Its funny you bring this up. For the avoidance of doubt, its a stonewall red. But i agree. I dont even think they should be allowed slow motion replays because it affects the referees perspective.

Different for handballs etc, where you need to check where a contact is made. But a tackle should only be replayed at normal speed and without freezeframes. In my opinion, of course

It doesn't matter if you commit a bad foul in real time or slow motion. You might be marginally late but that's still a bad foul and if you dive in then it's naive, you give the ref a decision. There's no excuse for attacking the ball like Lundstram did, it's a recipe for disaster. Shut him down at pace and stay on your feet. If he did that then we would have had a chance. It's players who can't keep themselves on the pitch who are the ones making the poor decisions not the refs who send them off.

 

[BertsEBT]

Of course but should not be the first thing the Ref view's as I've said. It should be viewed at normal speed first and the rest laterally.

I don't have a problem with slow motion or stills being the basis of the decisions

 

[Hurricane Run]

It doesn't matter if you commit a bad foul in real time or slow motion. You might be marginally late but that's still a bad foul and if you dive in then it's naive, you give the ref a decision. There's no excuse for attacking the ball like Lundstram did, it's a recipe for disaster. Shut him down at pace and stay on your feet. If he did that then we would have had a chance. It's players who can't keep themselves on the pitch who are the ones making the poor decisions not the refs who send them off.

I said it was a red mate. I was just generalizing about the change in perspective.

 

[Blue_Britain]

I don't have a problem with slow motion or stills being the basis of the decisions

I've not disagreed with that. I'm saying a still image of contact should not be the first thing the Ref views. Pretty much makes his mind up before viewing everything else.

 

[Blue_Britain]

I said it was a red mate. I was just generalizing about the change in perspective.

Don't think some are getting it mate

 

[Big Vern]

I'm sure a manager complained about that previously this season and I thought the freeze frame was getting ditched as a result

 

[cairngorm]

It was a red for me but my problem with the refs is how many times ( even in just four OF games) when they’ve ignored second yellow cards for the tramps

 

[TheFantasticNinetiesFox]

It was a nailed on red card it doesn’t really matter what angle or frame you look at it. I called it as soon as I saw the replay, before they even announced the VAR check.

However, to provide a different perspective on the debate, I suppose the freeze frame highlights that at the point of contact his studs were showing and the foot was off the ground, which are pretty key elements to differentiate between a red and a yellow.

 

[King Albertz]

Its funny you bring this up. For the avoidance of doubt, its a stonewall red. But i agree. I dont even think they should be allowed slow motion replays because it affects the referees perspective.

Different for handballs etc, where you need to check where a contact is made. But a tackle should only be replayed at normal speed and without freezeframes. In my opinion, of course

I think a slow mo made it look better, he was flying in out of control

Crazy challenge for a nothing ball

If only he showed the same desire to track his man

 

[BertsEBT]

I've not disagreed with that. I'm saying a still image of contact should not be the first thing the Ref views. Pretty much makes his mind up before viewing everything else.

I'm not sure why you wouldn't use it as the first thing as its the most accurate image available

 

[Hurricane Run]

I think a slow mo made it look better, he was flying in out of control

Crazy challenge for a nothing ball

If only he showed the same desire to track his man

Yeah 100% mate. I couldnt believe he was only given a yellow at first.

 

[Blue_Britain]

I'm not sure why you wouldn't use it as the first thing as its the most accurate image available

Because Refs take into account force, intention etc.

Again, I'm not debating the red yesterday. It's a general chat about the still image being first thing a Ref view's.

 

[Crown_Defender]

Its funny you bring this up. For the avoidance of doubt, its a stonewall red. But i agree. I dont even think they should be allowed slow motion replays because it affects the referees perspective.

Different for handballs etc, where you need to check where a contact is made. But a tackle should only be replayed at normal speed and without freezeframes. In my opinion, of course

They are supposed to use 'real time' footage for context. Tbh on this occasion I actually think they make it look worse. Once you see where he has connected and see it again in real time your first thought is 'it's a leg breaker'.

Agree with your point in general though.

 

[BertsEBT]

Because Refs take into account force, intention etc.

Again, I'm not debating the red yesterday. It's a general chat about the still image being first thing a Ref view's.

He will take those factors into account but the point of contact is the most important factor

 

[JCDarcheville]

Its funny you bring this up. For the avoidance of doubt, its a stonewall red. But i agree. I dont even think they should be allowed slow motion replays because it affects the referees perspective.

Different for handballs etc, where you need to check where a contact is made. But a tackle should only be replayed at normal speed and without freezeframes. In my opinion, of course

Nah, the point of context is important and can’t be assumed.

They should have a detailed protocol to walk through like in rugby thkugh. A series of questions gone through in order to establish an outcome in a decision tree.

Yesterday while have been:

1) out of control - yes
2) excessive force (speed) - yes
3) first contact on ball - no
4) studs first point of contact - yes

= red

 

[THEGOVANFRONT]

They are supposed to use 'real time' footage for context. Tbh on this occasion I actually think they make it look worse. Once you see where he has connected and see it again in real time your first thought is 'it's a leg breaker'.

Agree with your point in general though.

This is exactly how the guidelines say VAR should be used.
It is used in freeze frame for determining if it hits a players hand or not (factual decision) then they move on from there. These other types of decisions as far as i know are supposed to be watched in real time as slow mo or freeze frame do not show an incident in full.
But as you see on tv so many times the refs are constantly showed paused images or replays rolling back & forward in slow motion.

 

[WinkieWATP]

It was a red for me but my problem with the refs is how many times ( even in just four OF games) when they’ve ignored second yellow cards for the tramps

Yep. McGregor should have got a second yellow with 5/6 minutes left to go yesterday.

 

[JC85]

No issue with it at all tbh, as long as they also get shown real time, slow motion, different angles etc.

 

[BertsEBT]

Nah, the point of context is important and can’t be assumed.

They should have a detailed protocol to walk through like in rugby thkugh. A series of questions gone through in order to establish an outcome in a decision tree.

Yesterday while have been:

1) out of control - yes
2) excessive force (speed) - yes
3) first contact on ball - no
4) studs first point of contact - yes

= red

The Spurs/Liverpool audio was a shambles compared with cricket or rugby

 

[Mr Wilton]

It does not show the tackle, just the worst point of it, which can make it look worse. It was definitely a red card, but it’s the Poundland VAR we have, so we’re going to get Poundland results!

 

[Hurricane Run]

Nah, the point of context is important and can’t be assumed.

They should have a detailed protocol to walk through like in rugby thkugh. A series of questions gone through in order to establish an outcome in a decision tree.

Yesterday while have been:

1) out of control - yes
2) excessive force (speed) - yes
3) first contact on ball - no
4) studs first point of contact - yes

= red

It was a red in real time regardless. But im talking about in general.

Every tackle - near enough - looks worse in slow motion. But thats not how a referee actually sees it live. Its a change in perspective and it can influence a decision. For the complete avoidance of doubt. Lundstrams challege was a red in realtime and slowed down. Ive no arguments. But there will be times when slow motion replays will undoubtably influence a referee over a borderline decision. I reckon its why Celtic got Furuhashis penalty against Hibs - for instance

 

[GreigC]

Of course but should not be the first thing the Ref view's as I've said. It should be viewed at normal speed first and the rest laterally.

I suppose it depends on what aspect of the foul the review is over

Collum would have seen the speed of Lundstram clearly, that was impossible to miss...

If the actual review was over the point of contact, then its probably right that is the first thing thats shown

 

[TheAnalogKid]

The problem with var is the manipulation and inconsistency. Yesterday was a red, no question, and it should not have needed var tbh.

But McGregor against Hearts last week was the same. A red, no question, and father Clancy ignored it. Then var decided not to call him to the monitor because the late foul and deliberate stamp to end the 'challenge' would have meant the #SeparateEntity captain and playmaker would not have been on the pitch yesterday.

 

[Barca Bear]

I'm not disputing the red card yesterday, but I have wondered for a while now why the first thing the Ref views on the monitor is a still image of the contact??

If that's the first thing you see, you're pretty much decided there and then that it's now a red. Regardless of circumstances, force etc.

If you recall Watt of Dundee Utd sent off for taking his studs down an opponent’s shin at Tannadice.
Ref, I think gave a yellow.
Ref saw a still photograph of it on Var.
Red given.
When the video was shown, Watt was bringing his foot away from the tackle and Utd won the appeal.
It’s been said many times both here and in Epl that still pics shouldn’t be evidence.

 

[Blootoonboy]

I thought they couldnt do that with the VAR footage? It had to be shown in real time.

 

[alba73]

If you are needing slow motion reading is it a clear and obvious error.
Not talking about this incident but in general.


Seems press are more highlighting this rather than the non penalty, even though it was saved.

 

[GreigC]

I thought they couldnt do that with the VAR footage? It had to be shown in real time.

It does

But they can slow it down, and freeze it for factual aspects like point of contact.

The subjective aspects of force etc, have to be determined from real time

 

[Valley Bluenose]

I think it's because a still image captures the point of contact

It's that simple really. Establish if he gets the ball or the player. Then look at the speed and intensity of the challenge.

Same with all such challenges in every League with VAR that I've watched.

 

[Blootoonboy]

It does

But they can slow it down, and freeze it for factual aspects like point of contact.

The subjective aspects of force etc, have to be determined from real time

Its a red card regardless, if only the rules were applied fairly to all teams

 

[Anony Mouse]

Not got a problem with red card. But, the replay should be shown at normal speed without a still image shown at first. It should then be upto the ref to ask for a slowed down version or from a different angle. This to then make his decision.

 

[RAFBob]

Its funny you bring this up. For the avoidance of doubt, its a stonewall red. But i agree. I dont even think they should be allowed slow motion replays because it affects the referees perspective.

Different for handballs etc, where you need to check where a contact is made. But a tackle should only be replayed at normal speed and without freezeframes. In my opinion, of course

We're just unfortunate that Lundstram's challenge was made at remove your ankle speed.

 

[TNT]

I'm not disputing the red card yesterday, but I have wondered for a while now why the first thing the Ref views on the monitor is a still image of the contact??

If that's the first thing you see, you're pretty much decided there and then that it's now a red. Regardless of circumstances, force etc.

Said it several times.

I am pro VAR
However....

Still photos should only be shown for offsides
Normal speed only.

The first thing Collum seen yesterday was the stilll image. That's not acceptable.


Remember, VAR is meant to highlight "clear and obvious" errors - which should be the same at normal speed...Otherwise you are looking to re-referee a game.

 

[blueintheface]

My biggest bugbear of VAR is the use of slow motion and still images.

If you need to slow it down so much, I don't think it can really considered a 'clear and obvious' error.