There was a fascinating piece in BBC Science Focus magazine recently on VAR. Haven’t been able to find it again but a link probably wouldn’t work anyway, so seek it out…apologies to the author…
The crux of it. Adding a couple of extra humans into the mix on subjective decisions (fouls in this case) makes matters worse, not better. It’s a common mistake.
The scientist felt the core issue is that there are so many different opinions on what “looks like“ a foul that the current system will never be satisfactory.
So, the idea is this. Refs, players, managers, pundits, fans, everyone involved, review footage of incidents and give an opinion on what is or isn’t a foul. Ideally, the best way of doing this is to show a person two incidents and choose which one is more worthy of a free kick.
This is done tens, even hundreds, of thousands of times worldwide. In the Internet age, probably not impossible.
You then have a gigantic database which broadly speaking represents what the majority of people feel intuitively is a justifiable penalty/red card. Not just the opinion of an under pressure ref and VAR at Stockley Park.
This is the bit where you choke on your tea. AI can, in seconds, assess all the camera angles and compare the incident with that vast database to reach a decision. A decision based on far more experience of what is and is not a foul than any single ref could ever accrue. Very quick, unobtrusive, virtually unarguable, more widely acceptable verdicts.
I think it’s an interesting attempt to take a scientific approach to something subjective. That’s what VAR is trying to achieve (badly) anyway… so perhaps we should try to do it properly if we’re to persist with what is currently an inherently flawed system.
Plus, there’s not much point in chanting “you don’t know what you’re doing” at a computer.
Not sure whether I need a tin helmet or tinfoil hat for the responses to this one…
The crux of it. Adding a couple of extra humans into the mix on subjective decisions (fouls in this case) makes matters worse, not better. It’s a common mistake.
The scientist felt the core issue is that there are so many different opinions on what “looks like“ a foul that the current system will never be satisfactory.
So, the idea is this. Refs, players, managers, pundits, fans, everyone involved, review footage of incidents and give an opinion on what is or isn’t a foul. Ideally, the best way of doing this is to show a person two incidents and choose which one is more worthy of a free kick.
This is done tens, even hundreds, of thousands of times worldwide. In the Internet age, probably not impossible.
You then have a gigantic database which broadly speaking represents what the majority of people feel intuitively is a justifiable penalty/red card. Not just the opinion of an under pressure ref and VAR at Stockley Park.
This is the bit where you choke on your tea. AI can, in seconds, assess all the camera angles and compare the incident with that vast database to reach a decision. A decision based on far more experience of what is and is not a foul than any single ref could ever accrue. Very quick, unobtrusive, virtually unarguable, more widely acceptable verdicts.
I think it’s an interesting attempt to take a scientific approach to something subjective. That’s what VAR is trying to achieve (badly) anyway… so perhaps we should try to do it properly if we’re to persist with what is currently an inherently flawed system.
Plus, there’s not much point in chanting “you don’t know what you’re doing” at a computer.
Not sure whether I need a tin helmet or tinfoil hat for the responses to this one…
