With the rules on offside subjective as they are (interfering with play considerations for example) you will need some human input. Similarly handball.
Fouls, like handballs, can be left to AI too.
Just set the algorithm to adjust for likelihood of cheating by processing all of the previous related to the player, manager and club.
Interfering with play is THE MOST STUPID saying ever....if you are on the pitch you are part of play
As for handball - i'm sure AI can be taught to decide if given enough examples to look at....humans still can't get that right either...so same same
Players could get an AI rating
likelihood of dive levels - that sort of thing....yeah some players will be on a "list" - but that'll learn em
cheating caants
could also put whiney caant levels in too...Penandez wouldn't even start a game....
More seriously though, offsides should be determined in the same way as when the ball crosses a line.
The player needs to have crossed the offside line entirely, not just by the tip of a boot, shoulder, or whatever body part.
As regards contact with the ball, both the first frame showing contact and the first frame showing the ball leaving the foot of the passer should be considered.
The offending player needs to be offside in both of those frames or he is adjudged to be onside.
It always used to be said that unless it was 100% clear cut, the attacking player should be given the benefit of the doubt. The principles set out above would ensure that principle is observed.
If linesmen are asked to keep their flag down so the game can continue, you can't then have VAR saying it doesn't have the camera angles to change on field decisions.
Replacing one set of imperfections with another
comment by Sat Nav (U18243)
posted 9 minutes ago
Replacing one set of imperfections with another
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I'm all for trying new things if the current one isn't working!
comment by it'sonlyagame (U6426)
posted 1 hour, 42 minutes ago
More seriously though, offsides should be determined in the same way as when the ball crosses a line.
The player needs to have crossed the offside line entirely, not just by the tip of a boot, shoulder, or whatever body part.
As regards contact with the ball, both the first frame showing contact and the first frame showing the ball leaving the foot of the passer should be considered.
The offending player needs to be offside in both of those frames or he is adjudged to be onside.
It always used to be said that unless it was 100% clear cut, the attacking player should be given the benefit of the doubt. The principles set out above would ensure that principle is observed.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I agree with this.
There will also be marginal calls using this principle too of course but the benefit of the doubt will be going to the attacking side more than it is now.
comment by Gearing up for the Cycle to Start Again! (U17162)
posted 4 hours, 30 minutes ago
comment by Sat Nav (U18243)
posted 9 minutes ago
Replacing one set of imperfections with another
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I'm all for trying new things if the current one isn't working!
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Thats how we ended up with VAR
Get rid of offside altogether
Amend the handball rule -Ball to hand is not a penalty
comment by it'sonlyagame (U6426)
posted 8 hours, 6 minutes ago
More seriously though, offsides should be determined in the same way as when the ball crosses a line.
The player needs to have crossed the offside line entirely, not just by the tip of a boot, shoulder, or whatever body part.
As regards contact with the ball, both the first frame showing contact and the first frame showing the ball leaving the foot of the passer should be considered.
The offending player needs to be offside in both of those frames or he is adjudged to be onside.
It always used to be said that unless it was 100% clear cut, the attacking player should be given the benefit of the doubt. The principles set out above would ensure that principle is observed.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
There are repercussions you haven't considered. You only conversion the attacking team. This would change the game for the defending team massively. They may as well stop practicing offside traps in training. Defenders would find it safer to just stay behind the last man because playing the offside trap suddenly becomes a much much bigger risk. It would literally change the game.
Offside must be offside, plain and simple. It doesn't work any other way if you think about it.
I watch LaLiga and Serie A and they have these 3D silhouettes that make offside a breeze. Meanwhile in England, we are still drawing lines. Why?
comment by Sheriff JW Pepper (U1007)
posted 3 hours, 20 minutes ago
comment by Gearing up for the Cycle to Start Again! (U17162)
posted 4 hours, 30 minutes ago
comment by Sat Nav (U18243)
posted 9 minutes ago
Replacing one set of imperfections with another
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I'm all for trying new things if the current one isn't working!
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Thats how we ended up with VAR
----------------------------------------------------------------------
And nets, subtitutes, and yellow and red cards.
comment by K7-0ptimus Primal (U1282)
posted 29 minutes ago
comment by it'sonlyagame (U6426)
posted 8 hours, 6 minutes ago
More seriously though, offsides should be determined in the same way as when the ball crosses a line.
The player needs to have crossed the offside line entirely, not just by the tip of a boot, shoulder, or whatever body part.
As regards contact with the ball, both the first frame showing contact and the first frame showing the ball leaving the foot of the passer should be considered.
The offending player needs to be offside in both of those frames or he is adjudged to be onside.
It always used to be said that unless it was 100% clear cut, the attacking player should be given the benefit of the doubt. The principles set out above would ensure that principle is observed.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
There are repercussions you haven't considered. You only conversion the attacking team. This would change the game for the defending team massively. They may as well stop practicing offside traps in training. Defenders would find it safer to just stay behind the last man because playing the offside trap suddenly becomes a much much bigger risk. It would literally change the game.
Offside must be offside, plain and simple. It doesn't work any other way if you think about it.
I watch LaLiga and Serie A and they have these 3D silhouettes that make offside a breeze. Meanwhile in England, we are still drawing lines. Why?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You're speaking as if you'd never watched football before VAR. Error margins were waaaay bigger then, but teams would still do offside drills.
Most current offside decisions don't even require VAR either. It's only a minority that need a review, and the tighter ones in the pre-VAR days were pretty much a coin toss anyway.
When it comes to offside, VAR was considered a development that could avoid the typical instances where goals were ruled out when players were miles onside, or goals that stood when the circumstances were the opposite.
I don't think anyone expected or wanted this to be judged down to the smallest possible micron or pixel, much less so when the technology isn't in place to determine with certainty when exactly contact was made with the ball, or which the players' exact positions were relative to the lines on the pitch and to each other, and whatever pther variables might determine whether a player is fully offside or not.
You're speaking as if you'd never watched football before VAR. Error margins were waaaay bigger then, but teams would still do offside drills.
====
Error margins were bigger because of human error. Offside has always been offside.
Yes, but there was no way of measuring whether a player was 1mm offside, which is why officials were always instructed to err on the side of caution and not flag for offside unless completely sure.
Even then, there'd be instances where a player might be a good yard offside and not get flagged - or others where a player who timed his run well enough was a couple of yards on side but was given off.
Those were the ones I would say most people wanted to see stamped out.
Interestingly enough, the benefit of the doubt was also called upon in the case of penalties, though in those cases refs were told they had to be totally sure a foul had been committed (inside the box) in order to award a penalty.
All that is fine tbh, but offside must remain offside. Subjectivity cannot be done away with. Otherwise you change the game more than you think.
I'm not saying scrap offside, Mamba. I'm saying do it more reasonably. It's not like the offside rule hasn't changed over time:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Offside_(association_football)#History
The benefit of the doubt principle is akin to the legal notion of burden of proof - the theory being that in order to penalise a player, the officials need to have a reasonable degree of certainty that the rule is being broken.
The potential 'law-breaker' here is the attacking player. That's why it's him, and not the defender, that gets the benefit of the doubt in potential offsides. In penalties it's supposed to work the other way, because it's the defender who would potentially be breaking the rules and getting penalised.
Based on the above, it's wrong to give a player offside by half an inch when the combination of variables being considered could be off by more than that. That's the reason for suggesting a form of measurement that observes a reasonable limit of certainty.
It's only actually been the advent of VAR that's allowed for the millimetrical measuring of offside, but its current implementation is based on the flawed and misguided notion that the variables are established with ultimate precision.
The actual fact is that they aren't. There's a margin of error, and they're acting as if there wasn't.
The VAR systems used in Italy and Spain, like the one at the World Cup, still require human input. There's a reason FIFA calls it "semi-automated".
Take a player sprinting at a reasonable 8 m/s. (Fyg, that's 28.8 kmh, when the fastest PL players have been clocked doing over 37 kmh).
That's 800cm per second, or 8 cm for every hundredth of a second.
Premier League broadcast footage is 50 frames per second, as per the PL itself:
https://www.premierleague.com/news/1488423
That means the margin of error is 16cm - or more than 6 inches - just for establishing 'point of contact' alone.
Yet for the purpose of their calculations, the reference point being taken for offside is the most disadvantageous to the attacking player.
In other words, it's an incontrovertible fact that they're removing any possible benefit of the doubt and, as a consequence, are wrongly penalising attacking players and ruling out goals scored from onside positions.
Page 1 of 1
First
Previous
1
Next
Latest
Sign in if you want to comment
Onfield ref & VAI
Page 1 of 1
posted on 6/11/23
With the rules on offside subjective as they are (interfering with play considerations for example) you will need some human input. Similarly handball.
posted on 6/11/23
Fouls, like handballs, can be left to AI too.
Just set the algorithm to adjust for likelihood of cheating by processing all of the previous related to the player, manager and club.
posted on 6/11/23
Interfering with play is THE MOST STUPID saying ever....if you are on the pitch you are part of play
As for handball - i'm sure AI can be taught to decide if given enough examples to look at....humans still can't get that right either...so same same
posted on 6/11/23
Players could get an AI rating
likelihood of dive levels - that sort of thing....yeah some players will be on a "list" - but that'll learn em
cheating caants
could also put whiney caant levels in too...Penandez wouldn't even start a game....
posted on 6/11/23
More seriously though, offsides should be determined in the same way as when the ball crosses a line.
The player needs to have crossed the offside line entirely, not just by the tip of a boot, shoulder, or whatever body part.
As regards contact with the ball, both the first frame showing contact and the first frame showing the ball leaving the foot of the passer should be considered.
The offending player needs to be offside in both of those frames or he is adjudged to be onside.
It always used to be said that unless it was 100% clear cut, the attacking player should be given the benefit of the doubt. The principles set out above would ensure that principle is observed.
posted on 6/11/23
If linesmen are asked to keep their flag down so the game can continue, you can't then have VAR saying it doesn't have the camera angles to change on field decisions.
posted on 6/11/23
Replacing one set of imperfections with another
posted on 6/11/23
comment by Sat Nav (U18243)
posted 9 minutes ago
Replacing one set of imperfections with another
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I'm all for trying new things if the current one isn't working!
posted on 6/11/23
comment by it'sonlyagame (U6426)
posted 1 hour, 42 minutes ago
More seriously though, offsides should be determined in the same way as when the ball crosses a line.
The player needs to have crossed the offside line entirely, not just by the tip of a boot, shoulder, or whatever body part.
As regards contact with the ball, both the first frame showing contact and the first frame showing the ball leaving the foot of the passer should be considered.
The offending player needs to be offside in both of those frames or he is adjudged to be onside.
It always used to be said that unless it was 100% clear cut, the attacking player should be given the benefit of the doubt. The principles set out above would ensure that principle is observed.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I agree with this.
There will also be marginal calls using this principle too of course but the benefit of the doubt will be going to the attacking side more than it is now.
posted on 6/11/23
comment by Gearing up for the Cycle to Start Again! (U17162)
posted 4 hours, 30 minutes ago
comment by Sat Nav (U18243)
posted 9 minutes ago
Replacing one set of imperfections with another
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I'm all for trying new things if the current one isn't working!
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Thats how we ended up with VAR
posted on 6/11/23
Get rid of offside altogether
Amend the handball rule -Ball to hand is not a penalty
posted on 6/11/23
comment by it'sonlyagame (U6426)
posted 8 hours, 6 minutes ago
More seriously though, offsides should be determined in the same way as when the ball crosses a line.
The player needs to have crossed the offside line entirely, not just by the tip of a boot, shoulder, or whatever body part.
As regards contact with the ball, both the first frame showing contact and the first frame showing the ball leaving the foot of the passer should be considered.
The offending player needs to be offside in both of those frames or he is adjudged to be onside.
It always used to be said that unless it was 100% clear cut, the attacking player should be given the benefit of the doubt. The principles set out above would ensure that principle is observed.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
There are repercussions you haven't considered. You only conversion the attacking team. This would change the game for the defending team massively. They may as well stop practicing offside traps in training. Defenders would find it safer to just stay behind the last man because playing the offside trap suddenly becomes a much much bigger risk. It would literally change the game.
Offside must be offside, plain and simple. It doesn't work any other way if you think about it.
I watch LaLiga and Serie A and they have these 3D silhouettes that make offside a breeze. Meanwhile in England, we are still drawing lines. Why?
posted on 6/11/23
comment by Sheriff JW Pepper (U1007)
posted 3 hours, 20 minutes ago
comment by Gearing up for the Cycle to Start Again! (U17162)
posted 4 hours, 30 minutes ago
comment by Sat Nav (U18243)
posted 9 minutes ago
Replacing one set of imperfections with another
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I'm all for trying new things if the current one isn't working!
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Thats how we ended up with VAR
----------------------------------------------------------------------
And nets, subtitutes, and yellow and red cards.
posted on 6/11/23
comment by K7-0ptimus Primal (U1282)
posted 29 minutes ago
comment by it'sonlyagame (U6426)
posted 8 hours, 6 minutes ago
More seriously though, offsides should be determined in the same way as when the ball crosses a line.
The player needs to have crossed the offside line entirely, not just by the tip of a boot, shoulder, or whatever body part.
As regards contact with the ball, both the first frame showing contact and the first frame showing the ball leaving the foot of the passer should be considered.
The offending player needs to be offside in both of those frames or he is adjudged to be onside.
It always used to be said that unless it was 100% clear cut, the attacking player should be given the benefit of the doubt. The principles set out above would ensure that principle is observed.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
There are repercussions you haven't considered. You only conversion the attacking team. This would change the game for the defending team massively. They may as well stop practicing offside traps in training. Defenders would find it safer to just stay behind the last man because playing the offside trap suddenly becomes a much much bigger risk. It would literally change the game.
Offside must be offside, plain and simple. It doesn't work any other way if you think about it.
I watch LaLiga and Serie A and they have these 3D silhouettes that make offside a breeze. Meanwhile in England, we are still drawing lines. Why?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You're speaking as if you'd never watched football before VAR. Error margins were waaaay bigger then, but teams would still do offside drills.
Most current offside decisions don't even require VAR either. It's only a minority that need a review, and the tighter ones in the pre-VAR days were pretty much a coin toss anyway.
When it comes to offside, VAR was considered a development that could avoid the typical instances where goals were ruled out when players were miles onside, or goals that stood when the circumstances were the opposite.
I don't think anyone expected or wanted this to be judged down to the smallest possible micron or pixel, much less so when the technology isn't in place to determine with certainty when exactly contact was made with the ball, or which the players' exact positions were relative to the lines on the pitch and to each other, and whatever pther variables might determine whether a player is fully offside or not.
posted on 6/11/23
You're speaking as if you'd never watched football before VAR. Error margins were waaaay bigger then, but teams would still do offside drills.
====
Error margins were bigger because of human error. Offside has always been offside.
posted on 6/11/23
Yes, but there was no way of measuring whether a player was 1mm offside, which is why officials were always instructed to err on the side of caution and not flag for offside unless completely sure.
Even then, there'd be instances where a player might be a good yard offside and not get flagged - or others where a player who timed his run well enough was a couple of yards on side but was given off.
Those were the ones I would say most people wanted to see stamped out.
Interestingly enough, the benefit of the doubt was also called upon in the case of penalties, though in those cases refs were told they had to be totally sure a foul had been committed (inside the box) in order to award a penalty.
posted on 6/11/23
All that is fine tbh, but offside must remain offside. Subjectivity cannot be done away with. Otherwise you change the game more than you think.
posted on 7/11/23
I'm not saying scrap offside, Mamba. I'm saying do it more reasonably. It's not like the offside rule hasn't changed over time:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Offside_(association_football)#History
The benefit of the doubt principle is akin to the legal notion of burden of proof - the theory being that in order to penalise a player, the officials need to have a reasonable degree of certainty that the rule is being broken.
The potential 'law-breaker' here is the attacking player. That's why it's him, and not the defender, that gets the benefit of the doubt in potential offsides. In penalties it's supposed to work the other way, because it's the defender who would potentially be breaking the rules and getting penalised.
Based on the above, it's wrong to give a player offside by half an inch when the combination of variables being considered could be off by more than that. That's the reason for suggesting a form of measurement that observes a reasonable limit of certainty.
It's only actually been the advent of VAR that's allowed for the millimetrical measuring of offside, but its current implementation is based on the flawed and misguided notion that the variables are established with ultimate precision.
The actual fact is that they aren't. There's a margin of error, and they're acting as if there wasn't.
The VAR systems used in Italy and Spain, like the one at the World Cup, still require human input. There's a reason FIFA calls it "semi-automated".
posted on 7/11/23
Take a player sprinting at a reasonable 8 m/s. (Fyg, that's 28.8 kmh, when the fastest PL players have been clocked doing over 37 kmh).
That's 800cm per second, or 8 cm for every hundredth of a second.
Premier League broadcast footage is 50 frames per second, as per the PL itself:
https://www.premierleague.com/news/1488423
That means the margin of error is 16cm - or more than 6 inches - just for establishing 'point of contact' alone.
Yet for the purpose of their calculations, the reference point being taken for offside is the most disadvantageous to the attacking player.
In other words, it's an incontrovertible fact that they're removing any possible benefit of the doubt and, as a consequence, are wrongly penalising attacking players and ruling out goals scored from onside positions.
Page 1 of 1