The 2018 FIFA World Cup is in full swing, with the last few matches about to take place en route to the Round of 16 on Saturday. While the world’s greatest football players are taking center stage, another main attraction in the tournament is the football world’s latest technology: the Video Assistant Referee.
The Video Assistant Referee or VAR has been adopted in sports like tennis and rugby, and recently by football leagues such as the English FA Cup and the Bundesliga in Germany. Ideally, the VAR helps make decisions for referees much easier and more accurate — especially for crucial, game-changing calls. But is the technology useful and helpful in every possible way?
What is the VAR?
The VAR is a video system that feeds information to referees on the pitch through a wireless earpiece. Assistant referees gather the information away from the stadium and forward these to the referees when a call is contested. The VAR marks the huge step football leagues are taking to digitize football, and has been used since last year.
It utilizes a goal line technology that allows the cameras in the stadium to scan the pitch at every minute. With this technology, movement on the pitch is detected at all possible angles and calls can be made more precisely. Assistant referees inside a control room have access to all these cameras and they send live feed to the pitch via tablet or iPad should the referees want to look at the footage themselves.
The VAR reviews game-changing calls on the football pitch at the time a protest is filed. FIFA lists only four game-changing calls to be considered: goals, penalties, direct red card incidents, and mistaken identity. The VAR checks the validity of these calls and sends the information to the referees. Do note, however, that the referees themselves still have the final decision on what call to make.
The system made its debut in a FIFA Club World Cup in December 2017 between Atletico Nacional and Kashima Antlers. The referee rewarded Kashima with a penalty after reviewing a play inside the penalty box.
Putting the VAR to work
2017 also saw the VAR’s debut in the English FA Cup, but it had its own set of controversies along the way. During a quarterfinal match between Tottenham and Rochdale, a goal by Tottenham was reversed for unclear reasons cited by the VAR. German football league Bundesliga also utilized the VAR during its latest season, but received mixed reactions from players and fans.
In the 2018 FIFA World Cup, the VAR takes center stage as a decision-making aide for referees in the group stages. The first instance was a non-call on a foul by Spain’s Diego Costa in their 3-3 epic against Portugal. Costa would slice the Portugese defense to tie the game at 1-1 at the time, but did so while taking down Pepe from Portugal. After the review from the VAR, the referee stood by his decision to count the goal.
The second instance happened in the France-Australia game when French striker Antoine Griezmann was tackled inside the box, yet the referee called for play to continue. Griezmann received a pass from Paul Pogba, and virtually blitzed through the Socceroo’s defensive line. Griezmann was awarded the penalty after reviewing footage from the VAR as the French went on to win, 2-1.
The third instance was in the Peru-Denmark game when another penalty was awarded to Christian Cuerva of Peru. Denmark’s Yussuf Poulsen tackled the Peruvian in the box, yet the referee called for the play to continue until the incident was reviewed via VAR. However, Cuerva missed the penalty and Poulsen scored in another possession to give the Danish the win, 1-0.
A VAR too high or too low?
While the VAR has only been around for well over a year, it isn’t exempt from both praise and criticism. Many people have shown their praises for the newest technology applied to the football world. The VAR now adds certainty and legitimacy to calls made by referees during matches, instead of them making the same wrong call every time. With football players and managers focusing on the tiniest of details to improve their game, information from the VAR becomes important.
The VAR provides an opportunity for football games to be fair and balanced. Referees now have different vantage points to look at when making calls that ultimately change the outcome of the game. People came to see a quality match wherein the players truly shine, but sometimes the referee’s poor decisions hamper that. In this regard, there is no excuse for not making the right decision with all the video evidence available.
However, a lot of people also have strong feelings against using VAR. While the effort to make the right calls is appreciated, it gets in the way of what makes football so special. When referees call for the VAR — especially with contested goals — fans become anxious instead of jubillant. Usually, fans go into a frenzy the moment the ball goes through the net — no replays needed. It’s as if the game feels all too unrealistic because of all the technicalities.
For football players and coaches, the VAR only adds confusion to fans. Because some football stadiums are built without any big screens, fans become unaware of what’s happening when the referee calls for the VAR. Iran’s coach Carlos Queiroz lambasted the use of the VAR for close, judgment calls — particularly the offside call on his squad in a loss to Spain. He believes that the VAR was put in place to correct obvious mistakes by referees, not debatable calls.
The VAR is a fairly new technology introduced in the world of football, and surely, it’s not perfect. It’s a bold take on digitalizing football, keeping up with the technological demands of today. Because football is decided by people making the right calls at the right time, the VAR becomes an important part in establishing the basis for such calls. The VAR is a useful solution for referees to make the right decisions on the pitch.
However, we must be critical about how the VAR should play in during very crucial moments in the game. The VAR should help give fans a fair yet exciting football match without losing its spirit. With the Round of 16 coming up, all eyes will be on the VAR and whether it will help make the road to the finals interesting or not.
At the end of the day, football fans came to see the best players in the world do what they do best, and no amount of technology should get in the way of that.
Here’s what you need to know about eSIM
The technology behind Apple’s first dual-SIM iPhone
When Apple first revealed their new iPhone XS and iPhone XS Max, people were expecting something different. While on the outside nothing seems to have changed, the inside is a whole different story. The most notable change is the introduction of eSIM (embedded SIM) technology, something that they’ve done before with the Apple Watch.
But, what is this eSIM? How different is it from the SIM card that you know and love? And does using an eSIM change the game completely?
Let’s talk about the SIM and eSIM
One of the essentials for any phone in the market is a SIM card. Short for Subscriber Identity Module, a SIM card contains key identification and security features from any network carrier. It is used by these networks to identify their consumers and provide mobile connectivity for them — through calls, texts, and access to the internet. SIM cards also allow you to store information when you decide to switch devices every now and then.
eSIM technology, as the name implies, is embedded into the phone yet it still keeps the same functionalities as before. On devices that were designed with only one SIM card slot, adding an eSIM makes it a virtual dual-SIM machine.
How have regions adopted eSIM?
As mentioned earlier, this isn’t the first time Apple dealt with eSIM tech. The company had initially launched the eSIM for their Apple Watch Series 3 to give it better connectivity on the go. While Apples continues to incorporate eSIM in its newer Watch Series 4, they’ve decided to take it one step further with the iPhone XS and iPhone XS Max.
However, as of writing, only ten countries in the entire world currently support eSIM. This is mostly due to these countries having the proper infrastructure to support the use of it. While smartphone companies are looking to incorporate this new technology, the market for it seems to be relatively small.
The good and bad about eSIM
Like any other new technology, eSIM comes with its own set of benefits and difficulties — especially for those transitioning from the traditional SIM card. With eSIM installed in your phone, users will no longer have to go through the hassle of buying a specific SIM card.
Ideally, having an eSIM also allows you to switch between networks easily. Apart from an eSIM-capable phone, it also comes with the needed software to make the switching process faster and easier. In essence, you will be able to free up the allocated SIM card slot for a physical SIM card if your device supports it. This is most helpful when you travel abroad, and you need a local number in that country to access their network.
However, there are some processes that prove to be difficult with eSIM, one of which is quickly transferring your phone number to another phone, especially if you frequently switch devices. Unlike traditional SIM cards wherein you just transfer the card, you’d have to contact your service provider to activate the number in your new phone. This could be cumbersome depending on your provider’s customer service.
Furthermore, if the eSIM in your phone becomes corrupted or gets damaged in any way, it’s possible that you would need to replace your whole phone. Because the eSIM is integrated inside your phone, it won’t be easy to pry it out when things go wrong. This wouldn’t be too big of a concern for traditional SIM cards, especially when the card gets destroyed.
Are smartphones ready for the eSIM?
The eSIM technology is still in its young stages, and only a handful of devices currently support it. There is potential for the tech to be implemented across more devices in the future despite only a few countries welcoming them. However, a lot of people still primarily utilize traditional SIM cards given the difficulties of using an eSIM.
In the case of the new iPhones, for example, you can’t create two instances of chat apps on iOS. So even if you have two numbers running at the same time, you’d need a separate phone for another WhatsApp or Viber number, until Apple comes up with a software patch for this.
In the end, the technology’s impact can only be measured once more devices embrace it. But, for now, let’s celebrate how the eSIM gave us the first dual-SIM iPhone and see where the future will take us.
All filters: Article 13 of the EUCD explained
Is this the end for memes everywhere?
If you haven’t been on the web often lately, this may be something that has slipped past your radar. On September 12, 2018, the European Parliament voted to pass a directive that could change the way we approach the internet for years to come. But, consider first that it’s only the initial review, with a final vote happening next year.
What is this directive, and why is the internet involved? Why are people suddenly seeing #Article13 trend on Twitter a few hours after the decision was passed? What’s with this #SaveTheInternet nonsense?
Understanding the copyright directive
The directive at the forefront of this entire debacle is known as the European Union Copyright Directive, or EUCD. The EUCD hopes to streamline effective regulations towards the protection of intellectual property in the EU. It was first adopted in 2001, following the ruling during the 1996 World Intellectual Property Organization Copyright Treaty. Earlier this year, another version of the directive was drafted with added articles and stipulations.
Basically, the EUCD seeks to create measures to protect one’s copyright on created content. The range of intellectual property that should be protected include music, videos, images, algorithms/codes, and even software. The directive calls for member countries to enact and implement laws that protect copyright owners. Eventually, such stipulations also reach big companies that operate within the EU.
You might be thinking why there is an outcry over it in the first place, especially when the directive’s purpose is clear. Well, there’s one particular part of the EUCD that a lot of people disagree on: Article 13.
The unlucky Article 13
Article 13 of the EUCD isn’t a lengthy piece of reading. The whole article contains three provisions for the implementation of copyright protection on websites that host user-generated content. The directive makes a note that these websites store large amounts of user-generated content, with the main purpose, if not one of its main purposes, of earning profit. Basically, any website that allows you to upload your own content and allows you to earn money from it is affected by the directive.
The article also cites that such websites should create measures such as “effective content recognition technologies,” complaint management systems, and tracking solutions. These measures should be readily available the moment users upload content on the website itself. With such measures taken into account, it allows content creators and service providers to properly engage in discussions should there be a dispute. It’s basically what YouTube Creators is all about.
Websites like YouTube, Twitch, Facebook, and Twitter, as well as streaming apps such as Spotify, Apple Music, and IGTV (when monetization is available) are most likely the article’s main targets. The directive also explicitly states that non-profit service providers and online marketplaces will not be affected. So, Wikipedia and Shopee aren’t affected, don’t worry.
The ongoing debate towards copyright protection
For some people, the EUCD is inherently good for intellectual property protection. They argue that the primary goal of the directive is to protect users from piracy and copyright infringement. Through the EUCD, there will be systems in place that protect music labels, content creators, and publishers from any illegal use of their content online. For these people, users should be held liable for infringement of any kind (memes, remixes, and parodies are a few examples).
Furthermore, the directive not only affects users but also the companies that run these websites. It basically mandates companies to create better content recognition systems, or change their already existing system for stricter copyright protection. If they don’t make adjustments, they will be held liable for any infringement-related issues. What Article 13 does, for those who are for the EUCD, is simply a suggested improvement.
However, there are others who believe that the directive is a little too extreme and could potentially do more harm than good. Leading institutions and companies in the tech industry think that the provisions are too vague, leaving it open for interpretation. This has the potential for companies to abuse copyright claims without effective ways of intervention. Furthermore, any significant changes to already-existing systems would require heavy costs to implement.
The bigger picture here is how the directive affects the internet as a whole. Big names in the tech industry argue that it’s an attack on the creative freedom of users. Instead of allowing the internet to be an open space for the right way of creativity, it simply adds more filters and restrictions in the process. Basically, you can’t put up an Avengers meme without having the approval of Disney and Marvel Studios first.
So, what happens now?
The EUCD was put in place to protect copyright — a simple and basic goal. There is recognition that there are measures that must be in place to uphold copyright. There is no denying that big companies have to abide by intellectual property rules, or suffer severe consequences for infringement. However, a lot of people are clamoring that these measures are both vague and sound extreme. Not only does the directive infringe one’s creative freedom in providing quality content, but it also makes the whole process costly and rigid.
At the end of the day, everybody wants to protect copyright. The argument for or against the EUCD is already past the debate on whether protecting copyright is right or wrong. The debate now is whether or not a open source like the internet should be kept that way or be strictly protected at all costs.
All of these will come into play in January 2019, when the European Parliament casts its vote for or against the directive. If you have the time to read the EUCD, you can access the full document here.
Play more, charge less: Huawei’s GPU Turbo explained
Better visuals without sacrificing battery life?
Aside from using your phone to call, text, and take pictures, you now have the power to access the internet and play games with others. Instead of limiting yourself to Snake and Bounce, you now have online games such as PUBG Mobile and Mobile Legends.
There’s just one problem: Not all games are playable across all smartphones. With the gaming world now expanding to the mobile scene, you would need a smartphone with the latest hardware and software inside it. Even if that’s not the case, you would need a smartphone that can handle long hours of gaming, as well. It’s an intense fight over what matters to you the most: performance versus efficiency.
Fortunately, the choice shouldn’t be very difficult thanks to Huawei’s latest mobile advancement: GPU Turbo.
What’s GPU Turbo all about?
GPU Turbo processing technology aims to enhance the gaming experience across Huawei’s smartphones. Executives promise that the tech will boost gaming performance while maintaining the phone’s efficiency. This means you can play games on your smartphone without sacrificing much — like battery life, for example.
The technology looks at the graphical capabilities of your phone and adjusts it accordingly, especially for gaming. With GPU Turbo, technologies such as 4D gaming and both augmented and virtual reality (AR and VR) are taken care of. Huawei believes that GPU Turbo will boost graphical performance by 60 percent, and can make even budget phones play graphically intensive games.
Apart from boosting visual performance, GPU Turbo also enables smartphones to maximize efficiency. One common problem across all smartphones is that the battery depletes relatively fast while you’re gaming. Partner that with a non-effective cooling solution within the phone, and it’s basically device overkill when playing games. What GPU Turbo does is extend your phone’s battery life by 30 percent and keep your device relatively cool while playing.
Implications on Huawei Smartphones
One of the key insights Huawei executives received was about consumer demand for a smoother mobile gaming experience. Because people want to play the latest mobile games seamlessly, they would want to buy smartphones that are capable of doing so. Graphical performance should not suffer in the slightest, especially for multiplayer online battle arena (MOBA) and battle royale games.
The fun doesn’t stop there: With Huawei smartphones supporting GPU Turbo, other technologies such as AR and VR get a chance to truly shine. Huawei executives claim that GPU Turbo opens up opportunities for innovations like online shopping through AR or telemedicine through VR. At this rate, in theory, you could have a truly complete smartphone experience on your hands.
As of writing, GPU Turbo will take effect Huawei’s latest smartphones like the new Huawei Nova 3 series. However, older smartphones supported by the latest EMUI will experience the upgrade, as well. (View the list here.)
If you’ve been dying to have the full mobile gaming experience, GPU Turbo is definitely something to watch out for.
OPPO Find X Lamborghini Edition: Testing a $2,000 phone
Will a luxurious phone make me more luxurious?
Samsung Galaxy A7 hands-on review: Beyond the cameras
Just another camera-centric phone?
Honor 8X Review: A supersized midrange powerhouse
Big display, big battery
ASUS launches two new pocket-friendly phones in India
Google asks smartphone makers to pay for Play Store
Nokia X7 goes official in China with PureDisplay and Zeiss cameras
6 iPhone apps for your well-being
Huawei Mate 20 Pro Hands-on: Best phone of 2018?
Best Budget Smartphones in the Philippines below P10,000
Best Midrange Smartphones in the Philippines from P10,000 to P20,000
Best Upper-Midrange Smartphones in the Philippines from P20,000 to P30,000
Best Midrange Smartphones from $200 to $400
Best Premium Smartphones in the Philippines above P30,000
Computers1 week ago
NAIA caught using a pirated copy of Windows
Features2 weeks ago
Honor 8X vs OPPO F9: Head-to-head comparison
Features2 weeks ago
Honor 8X vs Vivo V11: Head-to-head comparison
News1 day ago
Huawei Mate 20 series launches with Kirin 980, new Leica cameras, wireless charging
Hands-On7 days ago
Google Pixel 3 Not Pink hands-on: Is it really pink?
News2 weeks ago
Apple iPhone XS Max isn’t able to beat Huawei P20 Pro on DxOMark
News3 days ago
Huawei Mate 20 and Mate 20 Pro prices revealed through leak
News1 week ago
Honor 8X: Price and availability in the Philippines