posted 2 weeks, 3 days ago
comment by Devonshirespur (U6316)
posted 50 minutes ago
comment by D'Jeezus Mackaroni (U1137)
posted 30 minutes ago
Indeed. there was 8-10 yards between Porro and that block so time to react.
_____
So less than a wall for a free kick?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yes, well doneYou're clever !
----------------------------------------------------------------------
So when a free kick hits the wall you see that as a deliberate and controlled play of the ball?
posted 2 weeks, 3 days ago
comment by Devonshirespur (U6316)
posted 28 minutes ago
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 12 minutes ago
Yesterday was another example of incidents that split fans.
For me, that isn't improving the game. Whether he was offside by a fraction or not, it didn't impact anyone in terms of getting an advantage and the negative result of it for the game far outweighs the benefit.
For others, they think that technically correct decisions are the be all and end all - nothing else matters, and they support it.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I have no problem that he was offside, no matter how close it was, and i would love the semi-automatic process that gives an almost instant answer that is very hard to question.
Why they didnt look that the Tomiyasu "block" is what i question. Even if they rule it as an unintentional action, they didnt look at it. They just looked at the offside when the ball was kicked.
Was due process followed? because it didnt seem like it was which then just erodes more faith in these clowns getting the decisions right
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Why would a block like Tomiyasu's count as a turnover in possession?
posted 2 weeks, 3 days ago
comment by Edinspur (U1109)
posted 29 minutes ago
comment by Devonshirespur (U6316)
posted 28 minutes ago
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 12 minutes ago
Yesterday was another example of incidents that split fans.
For me, that isn't improving the game. Whether he was offside by a fraction or not, it didn't impact anyone in terms of getting an advantage and the negative result of it for the game far outweighs the benefit.
For others, they think that technically correct decisions are the be all and end all - nothing else matters, and they support it.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I have no problem that he was offside, no matter how close it was, and i would love the semi-automatic process that gives an almost instant answer that is very hard to question.
Why they didnt look that the Tomiyasu "block" is what i question. Even if they rule it as an unintentional action, they didnt look at it. They just looked at the offside when the ball was kicked.
Was due process followed? because it didnt seem like it was which then just erodes more faith in these clowns getting the decisions right
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Why would a block like Tomiyasu's count as a turnover in possession?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Hard to tell until you look at a replay....is my point.
posted 2 weeks, 3 days ago
comment by D'Jeezus Mackaroni (U1137)
posted 36 minutes ago
comment by Devonshirespur (U6316)
posted 50 minutes ago
comment by D'Jeezus Mackaroni (U1137)
posted 30 minutes ago
Indeed. there was 8-10 yards between Porro and that block so time to react.
_____
So less than a wall for a free kick?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yes, well doneYou're clever !
----------------------------------------------------------------------
So when a free kick hits the wall you see that as a deliberate and controlled play of the ball?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
If you boot the ball away from danger, or head it away then yes. Players have enough time to react to the ball coming at them and deliberately stop it going towards goal. Its not so close as they cannot react.
If someone had a shot and a defender 8 yards away stuck his arm out to stop it, "Deliberate" hand ball would be the offense.
posted 2 weeks, 3 days ago
comment by Devonshirespur (U6316)
posted 9 minutes ago
comment by D'Jeezus Mackaroni (U1137)
posted 36 minutes ago
comment by Devonshirespur (U6316)
posted 50 minutes ago
comment by D'Jeezus Mackaroni (U1137)
posted 30 minutes ago
Indeed. there was 8-10 yards between Porro and that block so time to react.
_____
So less than a wall for a free kick?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yes, well doneYou're clever !
----------------------------------------------------------------------
So when a free kick hits the wall you see that as a deliberate and controlled play of the ball?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
If you boot the ball away from danger, or head it away then yes. Players have enough time to react to the ball coming at them and deliberately stop it going towards goal. Its not so close as they cannot react.
If someone had a shot and a defender 8 yards away stuck his arm out to stop it, "Deliberate" hand ball would be the offense.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Tomiyasu did neither. Law 11 goes into decent detail about why that wasn't a factor in the offside on Sunday. Not sure someone smashing the ball from 8 yards from you gives you enough time to do anything other than block.
And as Jack Grealish against Chelsea proves, the second part isn't true either.
posted 2 weeks, 3 days ago
comment by D'Jeezus Mackaroni (U1137)
posted 1 hour, 6 minutes ago
comment by Devonshirespur (U6316)
posted 9 minutes ago
comment by D'Jeezus Mackaroni (U1137)
posted 36 minutes ago
comment by Devonshirespur (U6316)
posted 50 minutes ago
comment by D'Jeezus Mackaroni (U1137)
posted 30 minutes ago
Indeed. there was 8-10 yards between Porro and that block so time to react.
_____
So less than a wall for a free kick?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yes, well doneYou're clever !
----------------------------------------------------------------------
So when a free kick hits the wall you see that as a deliberate and controlled play of the ball?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
If you boot the ball away from danger, or head it away then yes. Players have enough time to react to the ball coming at them and deliberately stop it going towards goal. Its not so close as they cannot react.
If someone had a shot and a defender 8 yards away stuck his arm out to stop it, "Deliberate" hand ball would be the offense.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Tomiyasu did neither. Law 11 goes into decent detail about why that wasn't a factor in the offside on Sunday. Not sure someone smashing the ball from 8 yards from you gives you enough time to do anything other than block.
And as Jack Grealish against Chelsea proves, the second part isn't true either.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Point being they should have determined it wasnt a factor by looking at it. They didnt look at it. It went straight to line drawing.
I dont care if they looked at it and decided - deflection. But they didnt and they should have.
I dont think anyone has actually shown a proper replay of it, other than the broadcast view which was too far distant to make a proper judgement.
posted 2 weeks, 3 days ago
Tried to take a step back from things and look at the decisions objectively and overall I think the right decisions were reached, but I can understand why Spurs would feel a little aggrieved.
With the offside, I personally don't like the rule as it is - it was brought in to stop goal hanging and IMO should be kinder to the forward players. That said, as the rule is now it's offside. It's close but it's clear. I don't think we should be looking at phases of play or anything - VDV was off when the ball was kicked.
For the Kulu pen shout, I don't want these to be given as penalties when there's a very very light brushing together with no intent, but we've seen them given before which is obviously where people are getting upset. In the moment, it's hard to see though - even watching it in slow mo a few times it's quite hard to see. The ref lets the play continue which leads to Maddison diving and it means there's a lot happening in a short period of time, it's quite a tough one for the ref to pick up on and I don't think you can look at VAR and say its a clear and obvious error. I would be concerned though that VAR told the ref to look at it again though and he refused. I don't think he'd have changed his mind, but it's a bizarre and worrying stance to take. If it happened against my team I wouldn't necessarily be annoyed at the decision itself, I'd be annoyed by another decision that lacks consistency and the unwillingness to look at the call again.
Spurs pen, clear as day. Concerning it took VAR to intervene, given how close the ref was to it, but the right decision was reached. Maybe he was banking on VAR looking at it so just played on waiting for them to make that call?
posted 2 weeks, 3 days ago
Our lack of finishing in the first half cost us, we had other chances to score but didn’t
posted 2 weeks, 3 days ago
But condensing what you said, TBAD, it was basically:
It was offside by the letter of the law but the rule should be changed
&
It should be a penalty by the letter of the law but the rule shouldn't be that
(while agree with both statements above) it seems that your outcome doesn't match your workings.
posted 2 weeks, 3 days ago
I guess, but if I don't make the decisions on the rules I don't know how else I can come to other outcomes. While I don't like the offside rule, it's pretty cut and dry.
I have no idea what the threshold for a penalty is though as it's been all over the place all season.
posted 2 weeks, 3 days ago
I meant that I was surprised based on your synopsis you thought the right decisions were reached.
posted 2 weeks, 3 days ago
(largely I don't really mind, I think the talking point for us is our set-pieces not relying on one decision to change our fortune)
posted 2 weeks, 3 days ago
I'm not sure I'd say I think the right decision was reached on the Kulu one, I'm just saying that I can understand why the ref missed it and VAR didn't overturn it.
Even after watching that one back a lot I'm not really sure which way I fall on it.
Offside seems pretty clear so I can't really come to any other conclusion, I just don't like the rule.
posted 2 weeks, 3 days ago
comment by Edinspur (U1109)
posted 1 minute ago
(largely I don't really mind, I think the talking point for us is our set-pieces not relying on one decision to change our fortune)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yeah I think if I was a Spurs fan, after taking some time to reflect this would probably be the thing that irked me the most too.
posted 2 weeks, 3 days ago
comment by Edinspur (U1109)
posted 4 hours, 33 minutes ago
I think that would be a poor interpretation of what Tomiyasu tried to do, an attempted block from a shot shouldn't count as him trying to play the ball or whatever. Its not like the Lovren incident where he went to clear the ball and miskicked it.
I have always been on the record regarding close decisions, VAR and offsides that I don't think the technology has the margin of error to say that offsides as close of that they can say are definitively offside.
I think the Kulu one was a penatly, but it really wasn't helped by Maddison continuing his clown act. I very much hope he is dropped.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I've seen divided opinions on whether the incident is offside or not, but VdV scoring from that position is certainly against the spirit of the offside rule. The notion an attacking player can profit from an offside position where a ball deflects off the defensive player just seems ill-thought. I can understand if it's a miskick or something similar, but from a ball that deflected off a block?
posted 2 weeks, 3 days ago
The Kulusevski incident was a coming together with minimal contact. The main reason he went down was tripping over his own feet. I've seen then given (soft penalties get given all the time), but more often than not, those are not given.
posted 2 weeks, 3 days ago
I think its offside and I think a block is completely different from a miskick. To speak for both of us (and TBAG can correct me if I'm wrong) we are arguing that the spirit of offside isn't for 3mm decisions (where the technology doesn't have that degree of accuracy).
With Kulu, he only tripped over his own feet as his feet were knocked into eachother by Trossard's knee. Its the same outcome as a tap-tackle in rugby or whatever.
posted 2 weeks, 3 days ago
Nope you're correct, I haven't really made myself familiar with the limitations of the technology but I think there should be a certain level of allowance given to the forward in these situations.
Having goals like this one and the one in the Coventry game ruled out for a margin like that just seems cruel and against the spirit of the game.
posted 2 weeks, 3 days ago
Some basic dumb sums, assuming two footballers are running oppsitte directions at 30kmh - that would be 8 meters a second.
In a second they would be 16m away. Most sports (from a quick google) broadcasts film at 60 frames per second.
In that scenario the distance between each footballer would change 27cm per frame (therefore 27cm of uncertainty). Naturally thats an extreme worst case example but it shows the flaw in the technology that tries to be precise.
posted 2 weeks, 3 days ago
https://icdn.caughtoffside.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Referee-Michael-Oliver-enjoys-pub-before-supporting-Newcastle.jpg.webp
posted 2 weeks, 2 days ago
"
In looking at the clipping of Kulusevski in the action that actually led to Saka's goal, VAR looked at it and determined "not enough contact". Deki had his heels clipped which made him kick his own leg and stumble. He managed to reach the ball but only really when on the way down"
*******************
Yes that was a penalty, not given.
Also I do not think VDV's goal was offside. On replay you can see an Arsenhole ass right in line with VDV's back foot. Not offside!
posted 2 weeks, 2 days ago
comment by Edinspur (U1109)
posted 12 hours, 18 minutes ago
Some basic dumb sums, assuming two footballers are running oppsitte directions at 30kmh - that would be 8 meters a second.
In a second they would be 16m away. Most sports (from a quick google) broadcasts film at 60 frames per second.
In that scenario the distance between each footballer would change 27cm per frame (therefore 27cm of uncertainty). Naturally thats an extreme worst case example but it shows the flaw in the technology that tries to be precise.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
This is what annoys me about the technology. TBF, VDV looked off side so i have not problem with that but much smaller margins are given when they are drawing lines from pixelated images because the picture definition is not good enough, determining ball contact from a 'low' framerate.
so 2 inaccurate factors determining a mm precise outcome.
And all of that is trying to establish whether the player has gained an advantage. Since when was being 5mm closer to the goal any sort of advantage
Sign in if you want to comment
NLD - VAR/Oliver
Page 2 of 2
posted 2 weeks, 3 days ago
comment by Devonshirespur (U6316)
posted 50 minutes ago
comment by D'Jeezus Mackaroni (U1137)
posted 30 minutes ago
Indeed. there was 8-10 yards between Porro and that block so time to react.
_____
So less than a wall for a free kick?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yes, well doneYou're clever !
----------------------------------------------------------------------
So when a free kick hits the wall you see that as a deliberate and controlled play of the ball?
posted 2 weeks, 3 days ago
comment by Devonshirespur (U6316)
posted 28 minutes ago
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 12 minutes ago
Yesterday was another example of incidents that split fans.
For me, that isn't improving the game. Whether he was offside by a fraction or not, it didn't impact anyone in terms of getting an advantage and the negative result of it for the game far outweighs the benefit.
For others, they think that technically correct decisions are the be all and end all - nothing else matters, and they support it.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I have no problem that he was offside, no matter how close it was, and i would love the semi-automatic process that gives an almost instant answer that is very hard to question.
Why they didnt look that the Tomiyasu "block" is what i question. Even if they rule it as an unintentional action, they didnt look at it. They just looked at the offside when the ball was kicked.
Was due process followed? because it didnt seem like it was which then just erodes more faith in these clowns getting the decisions right
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Why would a block like Tomiyasu's count as a turnover in possession?
posted 2 weeks, 3 days ago
comment by Edinspur (U1109)
posted 29 minutes ago
comment by Devonshirespur (U6316)
posted 28 minutes ago
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 12 minutes ago
Yesterday was another example of incidents that split fans.
For me, that isn't improving the game. Whether he was offside by a fraction or not, it didn't impact anyone in terms of getting an advantage and the negative result of it for the game far outweighs the benefit.
For others, they think that technically correct decisions are the be all and end all - nothing else matters, and they support it.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I have no problem that he was offside, no matter how close it was, and i would love the semi-automatic process that gives an almost instant answer that is very hard to question.
Why they didnt look that the Tomiyasu "block" is what i question. Even if they rule it as an unintentional action, they didnt look at it. They just looked at the offside when the ball was kicked.
Was due process followed? because it didnt seem like it was which then just erodes more faith in these clowns getting the decisions right
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Why would a block like Tomiyasu's count as a turnover in possession?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Hard to tell until you look at a replay....is my point.
posted 2 weeks, 3 days ago
comment by D'Jeezus Mackaroni (U1137)
posted 36 minutes ago
comment by Devonshirespur (U6316)
posted 50 minutes ago
comment by D'Jeezus Mackaroni (U1137)
posted 30 minutes ago
Indeed. there was 8-10 yards between Porro and that block so time to react.
_____
So less than a wall for a free kick?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yes, well doneYou're clever !
----------------------------------------------------------------------
So when a free kick hits the wall you see that as a deliberate and controlled play of the ball?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
If you boot the ball away from danger, or head it away then yes. Players have enough time to react to the ball coming at them and deliberately stop it going towards goal. Its not so close as they cannot react.
If someone had a shot and a defender 8 yards away stuck his arm out to stop it, "Deliberate" hand ball would be the offense.
posted 2 weeks, 3 days ago
comment by Devonshirespur (U6316)
posted 9 minutes ago
comment by D'Jeezus Mackaroni (U1137)
posted 36 minutes ago
comment by Devonshirespur (U6316)
posted 50 minutes ago
comment by D'Jeezus Mackaroni (U1137)
posted 30 minutes ago
Indeed. there was 8-10 yards between Porro and that block so time to react.
_____
So less than a wall for a free kick?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yes, well doneYou're clever !
----------------------------------------------------------------------
So when a free kick hits the wall you see that as a deliberate and controlled play of the ball?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
If you boot the ball away from danger, or head it away then yes. Players have enough time to react to the ball coming at them and deliberately stop it going towards goal. Its not so close as they cannot react.
If someone had a shot and a defender 8 yards away stuck his arm out to stop it, "Deliberate" hand ball would be the offense.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Tomiyasu did neither. Law 11 goes into decent detail about why that wasn't a factor in the offside on Sunday. Not sure someone smashing the ball from 8 yards from you gives you enough time to do anything other than block.
And as Jack Grealish against Chelsea proves, the second part isn't true either.
posted 2 weeks, 3 days ago
comment by D'Jeezus Mackaroni (U1137)
posted 1 hour, 6 minutes ago
comment by Devonshirespur (U6316)
posted 9 minutes ago
comment by D'Jeezus Mackaroni (U1137)
posted 36 minutes ago
comment by Devonshirespur (U6316)
posted 50 minutes ago
comment by D'Jeezus Mackaroni (U1137)
posted 30 minutes ago
Indeed. there was 8-10 yards between Porro and that block so time to react.
_____
So less than a wall for a free kick?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yes, well doneYou're clever !
----------------------------------------------------------------------
So when a free kick hits the wall you see that as a deliberate and controlled play of the ball?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
If you boot the ball away from danger, or head it away then yes. Players have enough time to react to the ball coming at them and deliberately stop it going towards goal. Its not so close as they cannot react.
If someone had a shot and a defender 8 yards away stuck his arm out to stop it, "Deliberate" hand ball would be the offense.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Tomiyasu did neither. Law 11 goes into decent detail about why that wasn't a factor in the offside on Sunday. Not sure someone smashing the ball from 8 yards from you gives you enough time to do anything other than block.
And as Jack Grealish against Chelsea proves, the second part isn't true either.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Point being they should have determined it wasnt a factor by looking at it. They didnt look at it. It went straight to line drawing.
I dont care if they looked at it and decided - deflection. But they didnt and they should have.
I dont think anyone has actually shown a proper replay of it, other than the broadcast view which was too far distant to make a proper judgement.
posted 2 weeks, 3 days ago
Tried to take a step back from things and look at the decisions objectively and overall I think the right decisions were reached, but I can understand why Spurs would feel a little aggrieved.
With the offside, I personally don't like the rule as it is - it was brought in to stop goal hanging and IMO should be kinder to the forward players. That said, as the rule is now it's offside. It's close but it's clear. I don't think we should be looking at phases of play or anything - VDV was off when the ball was kicked.
For the Kulu pen shout, I don't want these to be given as penalties when there's a very very light brushing together with no intent, but we've seen them given before which is obviously where people are getting upset. In the moment, it's hard to see though - even watching it in slow mo a few times it's quite hard to see. The ref lets the play continue which leads to Maddison diving and it means there's a lot happening in a short period of time, it's quite a tough one for the ref to pick up on and I don't think you can look at VAR and say its a clear and obvious error. I would be concerned though that VAR told the ref to look at it again though and he refused. I don't think he'd have changed his mind, but it's a bizarre and worrying stance to take. If it happened against my team I wouldn't necessarily be annoyed at the decision itself, I'd be annoyed by another decision that lacks consistency and the unwillingness to look at the call again.
Spurs pen, clear as day. Concerning it took VAR to intervene, given how close the ref was to it, but the right decision was reached. Maybe he was banking on VAR looking at it so just played on waiting for them to make that call?
posted 2 weeks, 3 days ago
Our lack of finishing in the first half cost us, we had other chances to score but didn’t
posted 2 weeks, 3 days ago
But condensing what you said, TBAD, it was basically:
It was offside by the letter of the law but the rule should be changed
&
It should be a penalty by the letter of the law but the rule shouldn't be that
(while agree with both statements above) it seems that your outcome doesn't match your workings.
posted 2 weeks, 3 days ago
I guess, but if I don't make the decisions on the rules I don't know how else I can come to other outcomes. While I don't like the offside rule, it's pretty cut and dry.
I have no idea what the threshold for a penalty is though as it's been all over the place all season.
posted 2 weeks, 3 days ago
I meant that I was surprised based on your synopsis you thought the right decisions were reached.
posted 2 weeks, 3 days ago
(largely I don't really mind, I think the talking point for us is our set-pieces not relying on one decision to change our fortune)
posted 2 weeks, 3 days ago
I'm not sure I'd say I think the right decision was reached on the Kulu one, I'm just saying that I can understand why the ref missed it and VAR didn't overturn it.
Even after watching that one back a lot I'm not really sure which way I fall on it.
Offside seems pretty clear so I can't really come to any other conclusion, I just don't like the rule.
posted 2 weeks, 3 days ago
comment by Edinspur (U1109)
posted 1 minute ago
(largely I don't really mind, I think the talking point for us is our set-pieces not relying on one decision to change our fortune)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yeah I think if I was a Spurs fan, after taking some time to reflect this would probably be the thing that irked me the most too.
posted 2 weeks, 3 days ago
comment by Edinspur (U1109)
posted 4 hours, 33 minutes ago
I think that would be a poor interpretation of what Tomiyasu tried to do, an attempted block from a shot shouldn't count as him trying to play the ball or whatever. Its not like the Lovren incident where he went to clear the ball and miskicked it.
I have always been on the record regarding close decisions, VAR and offsides that I don't think the technology has the margin of error to say that offsides as close of that they can say are definitively offside.
I think the Kulu one was a penatly, but it really wasn't helped by Maddison continuing his clown act. I very much hope he is dropped.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I've seen divided opinions on whether the incident is offside or not, but VdV scoring from that position is certainly against the spirit of the offside rule. The notion an attacking player can profit from an offside position where a ball deflects off the defensive player just seems ill-thought. I can understand if it's a miskick or something similar, but from a ball that deflected off a block?
posted 2 weeks, 3 days ago
The Kulusevski incident was a coming together with minimal contact. The main reason he went down was tripping over his own feet. I've seen then given (soft penalties get given all the time), but more often than not, those are not given.
posted 2 weeks, 3 days ago
I think its offside and I think a block is completely different from a miskick. To speak for both of us (and TBAG can correct me if I'm wrong) we are arguing that the spirit of offside isn't for 3mm decisions (where the technology doesn't have that degree of accuracy).
With Kulu, he only tripped over his own feet as his feet were knocked into eachother by Trossard's knee. Its the same outcome as a tap-tackle in rugby or whatever.
posted 2 weeks, 3 days ago
Nope you're correct, I haven't really made myself familiar with the limitations of the technology but I think there should be a certain level of allowance given to the forward in these situations.
Having goals like this one and the one in the Coventry game ruled out for a margin like that just seems cruel and against the spirit of the game.
posted 2 weeks, 3 days ago
Some basic dumb sums, assuming two footballers are running oppsitte directions at 30kmh - that would be 8 meters a second.
In a second they would be 16m away. Most sports (from a quick google) broadcasts film at 60 frames per second.
In that scenario the distance between each footballer would change 27cm per frame (therefore 27cm of uncertainty). Naturally thats an extreme worst case example but it shows the flaw in the technology that tries to be precise.
posted 2 weeks, 3 days ago
https://icdn.caughtoffside.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Referee-Michael-Oliver-enjoys-pub-before-supporting-Newcastle.jpg.webp
posted 2 weeks, 2 days ago
"
In looking at the clipping of Kulusevski in the action that actually led to Saka's goal, VAR looked at it and determined "not enough contact". Deki had his heels clipped which made him kick his own leg and stumble. He managed to reach the ball but only really when on the way down"
*******************
Yes that was a penalty, not given.
Also I do not think VDV's goal was offside. On replay you can see an Arsenhole ass right in line with VDV's back foot. Not offside!
posted 2 weeks, 2 days ago
comment by Edinspur (U1109)
posted 12 hours, 18 minutes ago
Some basic dumb sums, assuming two footballers are running oppsitte directions at 30kmh - that would be 8 meters a second.
In a second they would be 16m away. Most sports (from a quick google) broadcasts film at 60 frames per second.
In that scenario the distance between each footballer would change 27cm per frame (therefore 27cm of uncertainty). Naturally thats an extreme worst case example but it shows the flaw in the technology that tries to be precise.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
This is what annoys me about the technology. TBF, VDV looked off side so i have not problem with that but much smaller margins are given when they are drawing lines from pixelated images because the picture definition is not good enough, determining ball contact from a 'low' framerate.
so 2 inaccurate factors determining a mm precise outcome.
And all of that is trying to establish whether the player has gained an advantage. Since when was being 5mm closer to the goal any sort of advantage
Page 2 of 2