If they do offside, the lines should be drawn from feet, not an arm or head or torso leaning beyond the defender IMO
comment by Tarrico_sees_red (U5595)
posted 5 minutes ago
If they do offside, the lines should be drawn from feet, not an arm or head or torso leaning beyond the defender IMO
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Simple and straightforward enough.
I don't think lines are necessary, if it's that tight then it's onside.
Armpit and toenail offsides need stopping.
comment by Christopher (U20930)
posted 3 hours, 3 minutes ago
semi-automated offsides seem like a bit of a no brainer.
id prefer to get rid of the rest entirely rather than keeping as is but I do feel like if we get rid then a few months down the road a ref is gonna miss something absolutely blatant and we're gonna all be thinking "why can't someone just tell him"
would think about a challenge system maybe , can send the ref to the monitor once a half. if you get it right you can keep your challenge. It has to be the referee making that call though, rather than a VAR telling him what decision to make. VAR has completely warped the power dynamic, we basically have two refs now.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
lol was gonna post this. Challenge system works well in the nba I’d do something similar, plus the spinning finger aspect of challenging the play is hilarious
id prefer to get rid of the rest entirely rather than keeping as is but I do feel like if we get rid then a few months down the road a ref is gonna miss something absolutely blatant and we're gonna all be thinking "why can't someone just tell him"
=====
Exactly. The problem is we allowed the PGMOL to implement VAR. What did we expect? They're incompetent from way back, and their view of and approach to VAR is a sure recipe for failure. They see it as some sort of a helper or sidekick, an addition to them instead of seeing it as taking over most duties. With proper implementation, it's the refs that would be sidekicks. The PGMOL have implemented VAR but still done all they can to keep things the same as much as possible. They don't want to relinquish the shot caller spot. They can't be the centre of attention anymore if VAR was properly implemented.
For instance, why does the ref ALWAYS change his decision when called to the monitor? If it was normal, the ref would stick with his decision at least some of the time. It's clear that the instruction, training, preparation coming from Howard Webb and the PGMOL is bullsheet and it's ruining the game. They care more about backing each other up than improving the game.
We need to remove the PGMOL, not VAR FFS. Wake up sheeple!
comment by EdinEverton (U1109)
posted 26 minutes ago
comment by Christopher (U20930)
posted 3 hours, 3 minutes ago
semi-automated offsides seem like a bit of a no brainer.
id prefer to get rid of the rest entirely rather than keeping as is but I do feel like if we get rid then a few months down the road a ref is gonna miss something absolutely blatant and we're gonna all be thinking "why can't someone just tell him"
would think about a challenge system maybe , can send the ref to the monitor once a half. if you get it right you can keep your challenge. It has to be the referee making that call though, rather than a VAR telling him what decision to make. VAR has completely warped the power dynamic, we basically have two refs now.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
lol was gonna post this. Challenge system works well in the nba I’d do something similar, plus the spinning finger aspect of challenging the play is hilarious
----------------------------------------------------------------------
love when the players charge at their coach spinning their fingers, imagining that happening every time they think there's a handball in the box
As terrible as VAR is, we should not get rid of it because it’s exactly what these incompetent corrupt refs want to happen. VAR has highlighted more than ever how terrible the refs are and instead of looking at that, we are being manipulated into believing VAR is the problem.
The PL in the richest league in the world, why can’t we just offer top salaries to the best refs in the world and sack all the incompetent clowns we are dealing with?
comment by Thorgen Kloppinson (U1282)
posted 18 hours, 51 minutes ago
id prefer to get rid of the rest entirely rather than keeping as is but I do feel like if we get rid then a few months down the road a ref is gonna miss something absolutely blatant and we're gonna all be thinking "why can't someone just tell him"
=====
Exactly. The problem is we allowed the PGMOL to implement VAR. What did we expect? They're incompetent from way back, and their view of and approach to VAR is a sure recipe for failure. They see it as some sort of a helper or sidekick, an addition to them instead of seeing it as taking over most duties. With proper implementation, it's the refs that would be sidekicks. The PGMOL have implemented VAR but still done all they can to keep things the same as much as possible. They don't want to relinquish the shot caller spot. They can't be the centre of attention anymore if VAR was properly implemented.
For instance, why does the ref ALWAYS change his decision when called to the monitor? If it was normal, the ref would stick with his decision at least some of the time. It's clear that the instruction, training, preparation coming from Howard Webb and the PGMOL is bullsheet and it's ruining the game. They care more about backing each other up than improving the game.
We need to remove the PGMOL, not VAR FFS. Wake up sheeple!
----------------------------------------------------------------------
At least in Spain, you do get refs sticking to their original decision after watching a replay, albeit rarely.
I do agree there's a strong corporatist approach amongst refs, whereby they tend to stick together and
sometimes defend the indefensible. This can also be found amongst refs turned pundits (I don't know about the UK, but they're a pretty standard feature nowadays in the Spanish media).
But unless there's something I misunderstood, I find that complaint you made somewhat contradicts the earlier part of your post, where you floated the idea that VAR should reduce the on-pitch ref to a subsidiary role.
There are just too many subjective decisions in football for VAR to adequately handle. Intentionality and force of contact are two key areas. Generally speaking, people (not just fans but even officials themselves) can't even agree on how much contact should be allowed. It seems to vary from game to game, and sometimes even within the same game.
And on the issue of intentionality, which in many cases is essentially impossible to prove or disprove, the effort to enforce legislation to cover every single situation is what's made an absolute farce of the handball rule.
As fans, I think we also need to take into account that we're not privy to every single conversation between refs and VARs, or to every single situation that gets reviewed in the VAR room. There will doubtlessly be situations where the VAR might convey doubts regarding a specific incident, but the on-field ref feels confident he had an adequate enough view that he doesn't need to go to the screen.
In the end, I think the bigger problem imo is that the on-pitch ref takes a subsidiary role too often, and bows too easily to the 'advice' coming from the VAR room.
What I do find lacking are transparency and accountability. Transparency in terms of knowing why refs make this or that call, and accountability in terms of there being actual public consequences for major fackups. These instances are relatively rare due to the corporatism I mentioned at the start of this post. Refereeing bodies need to be much more vocal about measures taken to stamp out fishy officiating performances. Sometimes it's just human nature to be swayed by the course of events, but unless that's openly acknowledged and dealt with, then refs will always have a get-out-of-jail card for whichever decision they decide to make.
comment by BillNick (U23088)
posted 23 hours, 15 minutes ago
In terms of the technology not being the problem.
I only realised this recently, but they are freezing the frame at the moment where they THINK the ball has left the boot.
There's an element of guesswork.
So for that reason alone, for me the ones where they are drawing the lines, checking millimeters etc are rubbish.
Also, I don't think off-side was ever designed to be for millimeters of an elbow being in front of a foot etc. It was designed to stop an attacker standing behind the defenders.
The Cov City one for example was ridiculous imo. Just as an example.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Calling it "guesswork" misrepresenting it a bit. It suggests they have no idea and are just blindly deciding.
The look at the incident frame-by-frame and get the most accurate frame available. There is a potential margin for error in there. It is significantly more accurate and reliable than the previous system of hoping one person in real time will get it right.
comment by welshpoolfan (U7693)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by BillNick (U23088)
posted 23 hours, 15 minutes ago
In terms of the technology not being the problem.
I only realised this recently, but they are freezing the frame at the moment where they THINK the ball has left the boot.
There's an element of guesswork.
So for that reason alone, for me the ones where they are drawing the lines, checking millimeters etc are rubbish.
Also, I don't think off-side was ever designed to be for millimeters of an elbow being in front of a foot etc. It was designed to stop an attacker standing behind the defenders.
The Cov City one for example was ridiculous imo. Just as an example.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Calling it "guesswork" misrepresenting it a bit. It suggests they have no idea and are just blindly deciding.
The look at the incident frame-by-frame and get the most accurate frame available. There is a potential margin for error in there. It is significantly more accurate and reliable than the previous system of hoping one person in real time will get it right.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
when have you ever seen a close up of the ball leaving the boot though?
Re offsides, you can never have the absolute guarantee that you'll get it exactly right. The issue is that there's a certain level of discretion that the people choosing the frame can apply.
I agree that the offside rule was intended to prevent forward standing behind the defence, so I think a position should be considered legal provided any part of their bodies are aligned.
You'd still get offside decided by millimetres, but at least it would mean there is 'clean air' so as to speak between the last opposition player (strictly speaking, the second last) and you could therefore argue there is a clear advantage to be had. The proviso would be to consider that even though a body part being slightly more advanced might award an infinitesimal advantage, that such a small advantage is to be allowed.
comment by it'sonlyagame (U6426)
posted 3 minutes ago
Re offsides, you can never have the absolute guarantee that you'll get it exactly right. The issue is that there's a certain level of discretion that the people choosing the frame can apply.
I agree that the offside rule was intended to prevent forward standing behind the defence, so I think a position should be considered legal provided any part of their bodies are aligned.
You'd still get offside decided by millimetres, but at least it would mean there is 'clean air' so as to speak between the last opposition player (strictly speaking, the second last) and you could therefore argue there is a clear advantage to be had. The proviso would be to consider that even though a body part being slightly more advanced might award an infinitesimal advantage, that such a small advantage is to be allowed.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It's a malaise of every walk of life and every profession.
Things that used to be a sensible value judgment, now have to be measured to the smallest possible denomination. Even if it's actually not possible to measure accurately to that degree.
I'd actually rather leave it to the linesman to decide whether the attacker was in front of the attacker and was he intending to obtain an unfair advantage from doing so. Unfortunately, that's not something you can even pretend to measure with 4D technology though.
We've forgotten just how many results used to be impacted by wrong offside decisions, some of them pretty blatant.
Going back to leaving it to the lino won't solve anything, it'll only make matters worse, especially when games have a lot riding on them and the decisions have a direct impact on the result, and everyone knows there's a perfectly simple and virtually immediate (with semi-automated) way for judging and correcting a mis-call.
As a reminder, look at the uproar over the flag in the Madrid-Bayern game. Looked well offside to the naked eye, but it actually wasn't at all clear, perhaps even fractionally onside. The officials were rightly pilloried for flagging and blowing up straight away.
And one of the last times Madrid and Bayern met, shortly before VAR, Madrid went through on the back of two clearly offside goals in extra time. I'm a Madrid fan, but the bald truth is that neither should have stood.
comment by BillNick (U23088)
posted 1 hour, 13 minutes ago
comment by welshpoolfan (U7693)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by BillNick (U23088)
posted 23 hours, 15 minutes ago
In terms of the technology not being the problem.
I only realised this recently, but they are freezing the frame at the moment where they THINK the ball has left the boot.
There's an element of guesswork.
So for that reason alone, for me the ones where they are drawing the lines, checking millimeters etc are rubbish.
Also, I don't think off-side was ever designed to be for millimeters of an elbow being in front of a foot etc. It was designed to stop an attacker standing behind the defenders.
The Cov City one for example was ridiculous imo. Just as an example.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Calling it "guesswork" misrepresenting it a bit. It suggests they have no idea and are just blindly deciding.
The look at the incident frame-by-frame and get the most accurate frame available. There is a potential margin for error in there. It is significantly more accurate and reliable than the previous system of hoping one person in real time will get it right.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
when have you ever seen a close up of the ball leaving the boot though?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
What do you mean? It's pretty straightforward.
Clip A shows the ball still in contact with the foot. Clip B shows that the ball ha been kicked and is now separate from the foot.
You then go with Clip A as the closest available frame that shows the contact.
comment by BillNick (U23088)
posted 56 minutes ago
comment by it'sonlyagame (U6426)
posted 3 minutes ago
Re offsides, you can never have the absolute guarantee that you'll get it exactly right. The issue is that there's a certain level of discretion that the people choosing the frame can apply.
I agree that the offside rule was intended to prevent forward standing behind the defence, so I think a position should be considered legal provided any part of their bodies are aligned.
You'd still get offside decided by millimetres, but at least it would mean there is 'clean air' so as to speak between the last opposition player (strictly speaking, the second last) and you could therefore argue there is a clear advantage to be had. The proviso would be to consider that even though a body part being slightly more advanced might award an infinitesimal advantage, that such a small advantage is to be allowed.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It's a malaise of every walk of life and every profession.
Things that used to be a sensible value judgment, now have to be measured to the smallest possible denomination. Even if it's actually not possible to measure accurately to that degree.
I'd actually rather leave it to the linesman to decide whether the attacker was in front of the attacker and was he intending to obtain an unfair advantage from doing so. Unfortunately, that's not something you can even pretend to measure with 4D technology though.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
What do you mean was the attacker "intending to gain an unfair advantage"?
How would you determine that?
1. All attackers are intending to gain an advantage. Their purpose is to try to win the game so everything they do will be part of that
2. Even ignoring the above, how would a linesman know what an attacker was intending without being able to read their mind?
comment by welshpoolfan (U7693)
posted 11 minutes ago
comment by BillNick (U23088)
posted 1 hour, 13 minutes ago
comment by welshpoolfan (U7693)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by BillNick (U23088)
posted 23 hours, 15 minutes ago
In terms of the technology not being the problem.
I only realised this recently, but they are freezing the frame at the moment where they THINK the ball has left the boot.
There's an element of guesswork.
So for that reason alone, for me the ones where they are drawing the lines, checking millimeters etc are rubbish.
Also, I don't think off-side was ever designed to be for millimeters of an elbow being in front of a foot etc. It was designed to stop an attacker standing behind the defenders.
The Cov City one for example was ridiculous imo. Just as an example.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Calling it "guesswork" misrepresenting it a bit. It suggests they have no idea and are just blindly deciding.
The look at the incident frame-by-frame and get the most accurate frame available. There is a potential margin for error in there. It is significantly more accurate and reliable than the previous system of hoping one person in real time will get it right.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
when have you ever seen a close up of the ball leaving the boot though?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
What do you mean? It's pretty straightforward.
Clip A shows the ball still in contact with the foot. Clip B shows that the ball ha been kicked and is now separate from the foot.
You then go with Clip A as the closest available frame that shows the contact.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
We see lines drawn and decisions made to the nearest millimeter with close ups and various angles, regarding which bit of which player is the further forward.
But this is all based on the moment at which the ball left the passer's foot. Which we see nothing of. It's just based on one angle and the VAR operator's best guess as to when it left the foot.
comment by BillNick (U23088)
posted 11 minutes ago
comment by welshpoolfan (U7693)
posted 11 minutes ago
comment by BillNick (U23088)
posted 1 hour, 13 minutes ago
comment by welshpoolfan (U7693)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by BillNick (U23088)
posted 23 hours, 15 minutes ago
In terms of the technology not being the problem.
I only realised this recently, but they are freezing the frame at the moment where they THINK the ball has left the boot.
There's an element of guesswork.
So for that reason alone, for me the ones where they are drawing the lines, checking millimeters etc are rubbish.
Also, I don't think off-side was ever designed to be for millimeters of an elbow being in front of a foot etc. It was designed to stop an attacker standing behind the defenders.
The Cov City one for example was ridiculous imo. Just as an example.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Calling it "guesswork" misrepresenting it a bit. It suggests they have no idea and are just blindly deciding.
The look at the incident frame-by-frame and get the most accurate frame available. There is a potential margin for error in there. It is significantly more accurate and reliable than the previous system of hoping one person in real time will get it right.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
when have you ever seen a close up of the ball leaving the boot though?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
What do you mean? It's pretty straightforward.
Clip A shows the ball still in contact with the foot. Clip B shows that the ball ha been kicked and is now separate from the foot.
You then go with Clip A as the closest available frame that shows the contact.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
We see lines drawn and decisions made to the nearest millimeter with close ups and various angles, regarding which bit of which player is the further forward.
But this is all based on the moment at which the ball left the passer's foot. Which we see nothing of. It's just based on one angle and the VAR operator's best guess as to when it left the foot.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
So your argument is because they don't show you this every time then it must mean they are "guessing"?
I've literally explained the process for you. It's not a guess, its using the best frame available.
Welshpool, I think that's probably just a semantic issue. I think the gist was probably more that players intends to gain the maximum advantage, not that they intend to gain it unfairly.
As for the physics of the offside call, I ran the numbers past an AI assistant, and here are a few considerations:
A sprint speed of 29 km/h (human top speed is actually about 10km/h faster) is fractionally over 8 metres, or 800mm per second.
TV sportscasting generally runs at 60 frames per second.
Contact with the ball lasts around 12 milliseconds.
The above means that depending on the angle at which the footage is taken, you will often have two different frames in which contact appears to be made. With players running at full speed, this can account for the player looking to be onside or offside depending on the frame chosen.
Given the margin of error in these measurements, the choice of frame can impact whether or not a player is adjudged to be onside.
It therefore makes sense to make a certain allowance. Imo, the principle should be to favour attacking play and avoid potentially incorrect offside calls, so in order to allow for judgement errors, you should always take the position most favourable to the attacker. Extremely marginal offside calls should not therefore be considered.
The 'clean air' principle ought to allow all of those situations to be avoided, if the principle is that it is an allowance provided for offside positions that are too tight to call. In such cases, the argument of 'armpit offsides' ceases to apply, since you are working on a margin of error allowed for what would be an exact offside call.
comment by welshpoolfan (U7693)
posted 8 minutes ago
So your argument is because they don't show you this every time then it must mean they are "guessing"?
I've literally explained the process for you. It's not a guess, its using the best frame available.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Is the moment of the ball leaving the foot:
- assessed with the same level of evidence as is used for &
- analysed to the same degree as
the assessment of the most forward part of a player?
comment by it'sonlyagame (U6426)
posted 15 minutes ago
Welshpool, I think that's probably just a semantic issue. I think the gist was probably more that players intends to gain the maximum advantage, not that they intend to gain it unfairly.
As for the physics of the offside call, I ran the numbers past an AI assistant, and here are a few considerations:
A sprint speed of 29 km/h (human top speed is actually about 10km/h faster) is fractionally over 8 metres, or 800mm per second.
TV sportscasting generally runs at 60 frames per second.
Contact with the ball lasts around 12 milliseconds.
The above means that depending on the angle at which the footage is taken, you will often have two different frames in which contact appears to be made. With players running at full speed, this can account for the player looking to be onside or offside depending on the frame chosen.
Given the margin of error in these measurements, the choice of frame can impact whether or not a player is adjudged to be onside.
It therefore makes sense to make a certain allowance. Imo, the principle should be to favour attacking play and avoid potentially incorrect offside calls, so in order to allow for judgement errors, you should always take the position most favourable to the attacker. Extremely marginal offside calls should not therefore be considered.
The 'clean air' principle ought to allow all of those situations to be avoided, if the principle is that it is an allowance provided for offside positions that are too tight to call. In such cases, the argument of 'armpit offsides' ceases to apply, since you are working on a margin of error allowed for what would be an exact offside call.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
They already have allowances.
The clean air principle just means players can stand offside and there is nothing a defender can do to stop it.
Yes, there is an element of a margin of error in the system, but the amount of focus that this had received feels strange. It seems to come from a place of "if it's not perfect it shouldn't be used" but the real measure should be, is it more accurate than the alternative system (one man with a flag).
It seems to come from a place of "if it's not perfect it shouldn't be used"
---------
If you read back on my posts, that isn't something I've said or suggested. In fact, I've actually stated that it would be a mistake to go back to the former system of relying on the linesman's flag when we know that we have the technology in place to be able to adjudge offsides quickly and seamlessly, more so with the semi-automated system that's already in place elsewhere.
Mine is a completely separate argument: that such infinitesimally small margins are not something that either attacking or defending players can realistically make allowance for, since both sides generally judge their moves along much coarser lines.
The prevailing approach to the game is to favour rather than penalise attacking play. The current system, however, leaves sufficient margin for either to occur. If we are to observe the principle of favouring attacking play, then it would make sense to preclude the possibility of penalising perfectly valid attacking play. How to do this? My suggestions is to leave out all this 'closest part of the body with which a goal can be scored' stuff, and provide a broader margin, which would be that the entire body of the forward were closer to goal than any part of the last defender (or goalkeeper, whenever the case applies).
It's essentially taking the rule as it stands and saying, "OK, this is the rule, but were going to apply the least restrictive interpretation possible."
It is generous with the attacking intent, while it still doesn't allow for the kind of goal-hanging tactics which were the reason the rule was implemented to begin with.
As I understand it, at its heart the offside rule seeks to encourage rather than deter attacking play by giving attacking teams a tool with which to reduce its vulnerability to counter attacks, while the absence of such a rule would make teams more fearful to commit men forwards. The greater leeway in the rule is extremely unlikely to remove that incentive.
In fact, I haven't followed your entire discussion with Nick, but from your exchange with me what you seem to be suggesting is "it's better than the old system, so we shouldn't seek to improve on it."
I'm not saying you need to agree with my suggestion (though you seem to have misconstrued it when you say a player could simply stand behind the defender and there'd be nothing the defender could do about it, which is completely incorrect), but on the broader issue of whether or not it can be further improved, my question to you is: If there is still margin for improvement, then why not try to find a way?
I've not suggested they shouldn't continue to improve. The improvement will be when better tech allows for more precision.
You've said they should give an allowance for particularly tight offsides and the answer to that, as I said, was that they have already done this by incorporating thicker lines.
I don't think I have misconstrued your suggestion. Your suggestion is that the entire body of the attacker needs to be offside for an offside to count. Or, to put it another way, if a tiny part of a player is onside then he is onside.
This means, as I said, that a striker could stand effectively fully behind a defender (with just the back of his heel required to be overlapping) and wait for a ball over the top. The defender can't stop him doing this and would automatically be at a disadvantage in any footrace because of having to turn. They could try to play offside traps like back in the 90s but otherwise they are at a disadvantage.
The offside law is currently at the most lenient it has ever been, and even with VAR having greater accuracy 3 of the 4 highest scoring PL seasons have come in the last 3 seasons.
Would it be the end of the world to get rid of offside completely?
Sign in if you want to comment
VAR FOR OFFSIDES?
Page 2 of 3
posted on 16/5/24
If they do offside, the lines should be drawn from feet, not an arm or head or torso leaning beyond the defender IMO
posted on 16/5/24
comment by Tarrico_sees_red (U5595)
posted 5 minutes ago
If they do offside, the lines should be drawn from feet, not an arm or head or torso leaning beyond the defender IMO
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Simple and straightforward enough.
posted on 16/5/24
I don't think lines are necessary, if it's that tight then it's onside.
Armpit and toenail offsides need stopping.
posted on 16/5/24
comment by Christopher (U20930)
posted 3 hours, 3 minutes ago
semi-automated offsides seem like a bit of a no brainer.
id prefer to get rid of the rest entirely rather than keeping as is but I do feel like if we get rid then a few months down the road a ref is gonna miss something absolutely blatant and we're gonna all be thinking "why can't someone just tell him"
would think about a challenge system maybe , can send the ref to the monitor once a half. if you get it right you can keep your challenge. It has to be the referee making that call though, rather than a VAR telling him what decision to make. VAR has completely warped the power dynamic, we basically have two refs now.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
lol was gonna post this. Challenge system works well in the nba I’d do something similar, plus the spinning finger aspect of challenging the play is hilarious
posted on 16/5/24
id prefer to get rid of the rest entirely rather than keeping as is but I do feel like if we get rid then a few months down the road a ref is gonna miss something absolutely blatant and we're gonna all be thinking "why can't someone just tell him"
=====
Exactly. The problem is we allowed the PGMOL to implement VAR. What did we expect? They're incompetent from way back, and their view of and approach to VAR is a sure recipe for failure. They see it as some sort of a helper or sidekick, an addition to them instead of seeing it as taking over most duties. With proper implementation, it's the refs that would be sidekicks. The PGMOL have implemented VAR but still done all they can to keep things the same as much as possible. They don't want to relinquish the shot caller spot. They can't be the centre of attention anymore if VAR was properly implemented.
For instance, why does the ref ALWAYS change his decision when called to the monitor? If it was normal, the ref would stick with his decision at least some of the time. It's clear that the instruction, training, preparation coming from Howard Webb and the PGMOL is bullsheet and it's ruining the game. They care more about backing each other up than improving the game.
We need to remove the PGMOL, not VAR FFS. Wake up sheeple!
posted on 16/5/24
comment by EdinEverton (U1109)
posted 26 minutes ago
comment by Christopher (U20930)
posted 3 hours, 3 minutes ago
semi-automated offsides seem like a bit of a no brainer.
id prefer to get rid of the rest entirely rather than keeping as is but I do feel like if we get rid then a few months down the road a ref is gonna miss something absolutely blatant and we're gonna all be thinking "why can't someone just tell him"
would think about a challenge system maybe , can send the ref to the monitor once a half. if you get it right you can keep your challenge. It has to be the referee making that call though, rather than a VAR telling him what decision to make. VAR has completely warped the power dynamic, we basically have two refs now.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
lol was gonna post this. Challenge system works well in the nba I’d do something similar, plus the spinning finger aspect of challenging the play is hilarious
----------------------------------------------------------------------
love when the players charge at their coach spinning their fingers, imagining that happening every time they think there's a handball in the box
posted on 17/5/24
As terrible as VAR is, we should not get rid of it because it’s exactly what these incompetent corrupt refs want to happen. VAR has highlighted more than ever how terrible the refs are and instead of looking at that, we are being manipulated into believing VAR is the problem.
The PL in the richest league in the world, why can’t we just offer top salaries to the best refs in the world and sack all the incompetent clowns we are dealing with?
posted on 17/5/24
comment by Thorgen Kloppinson (U1282)
posted 18 hours, 51 minutes ago
id prefer to get rid of the rest entirely rather than keeping as is but I do feel like if we get rid then a few months down the road a ref is gonna miss something absolutely blatant and we're gonna all be thinking "why can't someone just tell him"
=====
Exactly. The problem is we allowed the PGMOL to implement VAR. What did we expect? They're incompetent from way back, and their view of and approach to VAR is a sure recipe for failure. They see it as some sort of a helper or sidekick, an addition to them instead of seeing it as taking over most duties. With proper implementation, it's the refs that would be sidekicks. The PGMOL have implemented VAR but still done all they can to keep things the same as much as possible. They don't want to relinquish the shot caller spot. They can't be the centre of attention anymore if VAR was properly implemented.
For instance, why does the ref ALWAYS change his decision when called to the monitor? If it was normal, the ref would stick with his decision at least some of the time. It's clear that the instruction, training, preparation coming from Howard Webb and the PGMOL is bullsheet and it's ruining the game. They care more about backing each other up than improving the game.
We need to remove the PGMOL, not VAR FFS. Wake up sheeple!
----------------------------------------------------------------------
At least in Spain, you do get refs sticking to their original decision after watching a replay, albeit rarely.
I do agree there's a strong corporatist approach amongst refs, whereby they tend to stick together and
sometimes defend the indefensible. This can also be found amongst refs turned pundits (I don't know about the UK, but they're a pretty standard feature nowadays in the Spanish media).
But unless there's something I misunderstood, I find that complaint you made somewhat contradicts the earlier part of your post, where you floated the idea that VAR should reduce the on-pitch ref to a subsidiary role.
There are just too many subjective decisions in football for VAR to adequately handle. Intentionality and force of contact are two key areas. Generally speaking, people (not just fans but even officials themselves) can't even agree on how much contact should be allowed. It seems to vary from game to game, and sometimes even within the same game.
And on the issue of intentionality, which in many cases is essentially impossible to prove or disprove, the effort to enforce legislation to cover every single situation is what's made an absolute farce of the handball rule.
As fans, I think we also need to take into account that we're not privy to every single conversation between refs and VARs, or to every single situation that gets reviewed in the VAR room. There will doubtlessly be situations where the VAR might convey doubts regarding a specific incident, but the on-field ref feels confident he had an adequate enough view that he doesn't need to go to the screen.
In the end, I think the bigger problem imo is that the on-pitch ref takes a subsidiary role too often, and bows too easily to the 'advice' coming from the VAR room.
What I do find lacking are transparency and accountability. Transparency in terms of knowing why refs make this or that call, and accountability in terms of there being actual public consequences for major fackups. These instances are relatively rare due to the corporatism I mentioned at the start of this post. Refereeing bodies need to be much more vocal about measures taken to stamp out fishy officiating performances. Sometimes it's just human nature to be swayed by the course of events, but unless that's openly acknowledged and dealt with, then refs will always have a get-out-of-jail card for whichever decision they decide to make.
posted on 17/5/24
comment by BillNick (U23088)
posted 23 hours, 15 minutes ago
In terms of the technology not being the problem.
I only realised this recently, but they are freezing the frame at the moment where they THINK the ball has left the boot.
There's an element of guesswork.
So for that reason alone, for me the ones where they are drawing the lines, checking millimeters etc are rubbish.
Also, I don't think off-side was ever designed to be for millimeters of an elbow being in front of a foot etc. It was designed to stop an attacker standing behind the defenders.
The Cov City one for example was ridiculous imo. Just as an example.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Calling it "guesswork" misrepresenting it a bit. It suggests they have no idea and are just blindly deciding.
The look at the incident frame-by-frame and get the most accurate frame available. There is a potential margin for error in there. It is significantly more accurate and reliable than the previous system of hoping one person in real time will get it right.
posted on 17/5/24
comment by welshpoolfan (U7693)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by BillNick (U23088)
posted 23 hours, 15 minutes ago
In terms of the technology not being the problem.
I only realised this recently, but they are freezing the frame at the moment where they THINK the ball has left the boot.
There's an element of guesswork.
So for that reason alone, for me the ones where they are drawing the lines, checking millimeters etc are rubbish.
Also, I don't think off-side was ever designed to be for millimeters of an elbow being in front of a foot etc. It was designed to stop an attacker standing behind the defenders.
The Cov City one for example was ridiculous imo. Just as an example.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Calling it "guesswork" misrepresenting it a bit. It suggests they have no idea and are just blindly deciding.
The look at the incident frame-by-frame and get the most accurate frame available. There is a potential margin for error in there. It is significantly more accurate and reliable than the previous system of hoping one person in real time will get it right.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
when have you ever seen a close up of the ball leaving the boot though?
posted on 17/5/24
Re offsides, you can never have the absolute guarantee that you'll get it exactly right. The issue is that there's a certain level of discretion that the people choosing the frame can apply.
I agree that the offside rule was intended to prevent forward standing behind the defence, so I think a position should be considered legal provided any part of their bodies are aligned.
You'd still get offside decided by millimetres, but at least it would mean there is 'clean air' so as to speak between the last opposition player (strictly speaking, the second last) and you could therefore argue there is a clear advantage to be had. The proviso would be to consider that even though a body part being slightly more advanced might award an infinitesimal advantage, that such a small advantage is to be allowed.
posted on 17/5/24
comment by it'sonlyagame (U6426)
posted 3 minutes ago
Re offsides, you can never have the absolute guarantee that you'll get it exactly right. The issue is that there's a certain level of discretion that the people choosing the frame can apply.
I agree that the offside rule was intended to prevent forward standing behind the defence, so I think a position should be considered legal provided any part of their bodies are aligned.
You'd still get offside decided by millimetres, but at least it would mean there is 'clean air' so as to speak between the last opposition player (strictly speaking, the second last) and you could therefore argue there is a clear advantage to be had. The proviso would be to consider that even though a body part being slightly more advanced might award an infinitesimal advantage, that such a small advantage is to be allowed.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It's a malaise of every walk of life and every profession.
Things that used to be a sensible value judgment, now have to be measured to the smallest possible denomination. Even if it's actually not possible to measure accurately to that degree.
I'd actually rather leave it to the linesman to decide whether the attacker was in front of the attacker and was he intending to obtain an unfair advantage from doing so. Unfortunately, that's not something you can even pretend to measure with 4D technology though.
posted on 17/5/24
in front of the defender
posted on 17/5/24
We've forgotten just how many results used to be impacted by wrong offside decisions, some of them pretty blatant.
Going back to leaving it to the lino won't solve anything, it'll only make matters worse, especially when games have a lot riding on them and the decisions have a direct impact on the result, and everyone knows there's a perfectly simple and virtually immediate (with semi-automated) way for judging and correcting a mis-call.
As a reminder, look at the uproar over the flag in the Madrid-Bayern game. Looked well offside to the naked eye, but it actually wasn't at all clear, perhaps even fractionally onside. The officials were rightly pilloried for flagging and blowing up straight away.
And one of the last times Madrid and Bayern met, shortly before VAR, Madrid went through on the back of two clearly offside goals in extra time. I'm a Madrid fan, but the bald truth is that neither should have stood.
posted on 17/5/24
comment by BillNick (U23088)
posted 1 hour, 13 minutes ago
comment by welshpoolfan (U7693)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by BillNick (U23088)
posted 23 hours, 15 minutes ago
In terms of the technology not being the problem.
I only realised this recently, but they are freezing the frame at the moment where they THINK the ball has left the boot.
There's an element of guesswork.
So for that reason alone, for me the ones where they are drawing the lines, checking millimeters etc are rubbish.
Also, I don't think off-side was ever designed to be for millimeters of an elbow being in front of a foot etc. It was designed to stop an attacker standing behind the defenders.
The Cov City one for example was ridiculous imo. Just as an example.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Calling it "guesswork" misrepresenting it a bit. It suggests they have no idea and are just blindly deciding.
The look at the incident frame-by-frame and get the most accurate frame available. There is a potential margin for error in there. It is significantly more accurate and reliable than the previous system of hoping one person in real time will get it right.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
when have you ever seen a close up of the ball leaving the boot though?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
What do you mean? It's pretty straightforward.
Clip A shows the ball still in contact with the foot. Clip B shows that the ball ha been kicked and is now separate from the foot.
You then go with Clip A as the closest available frame that shows the contact.
posted on 17/5/24
comment by BillNick (U23088)
posted 56 minutes ago
comment by it'sonlyagame (U6426)
posted 3 minutes ago
Re offsides, you can never have the absolute guarantee that you'll get it exactly right. The issue is that there's a certain level of discretion that the people choosing the frame can apply.
I agree that the offside rule was intended to prevent forward standing behind the defence, so I think a position should be considered legal provided any part of their bodies are aligned.
You'd still get offside decided by millimetres, but at least it would mean there is 'clean air' so as to speak between the last opposition player (strictly speaking, the second last) and you could therefore argue there is a clear advantage to be had. The proviso would be to consider that even though a body part being slightly more advanced might award an infinitesimal advantage, that such a small advantage is to be allowed.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It's a malaise of every walk of life and every profession.
Things that used to be a sensible value judgment, now have to be measured to the smallest possible denomination. Even if it's actually not possible to measure accurately to that degree.
I'd actually rather leave it to the linesman to decide whether the attacker was in front of the attacker and was he intending to obtain an unfair advantage from doing so. Unfortunately, that's not something you can even pretend to measure with 4D technology though.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
What do you mean was the attacker "intending to gain an unfair advantage"?
How would you determine that?
1. All attackers are intending to gain an advantage. Their purpose is to try to win the game so everything they do will be part of that
2. Even ignoring the above, how would a linesman know what an attacker was intending without being able to read their mind?
posted on 17/5/24
comment by welshpoolfan (U7693)
posted 11 minutes ago
comment by BillNick (U23088)
posted 1 hour, 13 minutes ago
comment by welshpoolfan (U7693)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by BillNick (U23088)
posted 23 hours, 15 minutes ago
In terms of the technology not being the problem.
I only realised this recently, but they are freezing the frame at the moment where they THINK the ball has left the boot.
There's an element of guesswork.
So for that reason alone, for me the ones where they are drawing the lines, checking millimeters etc are rubbish.
Also, I don't think off-side was ever designed to be for millimeters of an elbow being in front of a foot etc. It was designed to stop an attacker standing behind the defenders.
The Cov City one for example was ridiculous imo. Just as an example.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Calling it "guesswork" misrepresenting it a bit. It suggests they have no idea and are just blindly deciding.
The look at the incident frame-by-frame and get the most accurate frame available. There is a potential margin for error in there. It is significantly more accurate and reliable than the previous system of hoping one person in real time will get it right.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
when have you ever seen a close up of the ball leaving the boot though?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
What do you mean? It's pretty straightforward.
Clip A shows the ball still in contact with the foot. Clip B shows that the ball ha been kicked and is now separate from the foot.
You then go with Clip A as the closest available frame that shows the contact.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
We see lines drawn and decisions made to the nearest millimeter with close ups and various angles, regarding which bit of which player is the further forward.
But this is all based on the moment at which the ball left the passer's foot. Which we see nothing of. It's just based on one angle and the VAR operator's best guess as to when it left the foot.
posted on 17/5/24
comment by BillNick (U23088)
posted 11 minutes ago
comment by welshpoolfan (U7693)
posted 11 minutes ago
comment by BillNick (U23088)
posted 1 hour, 13 minutes ago
comment by welshpoolfan (U7693)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by BillNick (U23088)
posted 23 hours, 15 minutes ago
In terms of the technology not being the problem.
I only realised this recently, but they are freezing the frame at the moment where they THINK the ball has left the boot.
There's an element of guesswork.
So for that reason alone, for me the ones where they are drawing the lines, checking millimeters etc are rubbish.
Also, I don't think off-side was ever designed to be for millimeters of an elbow being in front of a foot etc. It was designed to stop an attacker standing behind the defenders.
The Cov City one for example was ridiculous imo. Just as an example.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Calling it "guesswork" misrepresenting it a bit. It suggests they have no idea and are just blindly deciding.
The look at the incident frame-by-frame and get the most accurate frame available. There is a potential margin for error in there. It is significantly more accurate and reliable than the previous system of hoping one person in real time will get it right.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
when have you ever seen a close up of the ball leaving the boot though?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
What do you mean? It's pretty straightforward.
Clip A shows the ball still in contact with the foot. Clip B shows that the ball ha been kicked and is now separate from the foot.
You then go with Clip A as the closest available frame that shows the contact.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
We see lines drawn and decisions made to the nearest millimeter with close ups and various angles, regarding which bit of which player is the further forward.
But this is all based on the moment at which the ball left the passer's foot. Which we see nothing of. It's just based on one angle and the VAR operator's best guess as to when it left the foot.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
So your argument is because they don't show you this every time then it must mean they are "guessing"?
I've literally explained the process for you. It's not a guess, its using the best frame available.
posted on 17/5/24
Welshpool, I think that's probably just a semantic issue. I think the gist was probably more that players intends to gain the maximum advantage, not that they intend to gain it unfairly.
As for the physics of the offside call, I ran the numbers past an AI assistant, and here are a few considerations:
A sprint speed of 29 km/h (human top speed is actually about 10km/h faster) is fractionally over 8 metres, or 800mm per second.
TV sportscasting generally runs at 60 frames per second.
Contact with the ball lasts around 12 milliseconds.
The above means that depending on the angle at which the footage is taken, you will often have two different frames in which contact appears to be made. With players running at full speed, this can account for the player looking to be onside or offside depending on the frame chosen.
Given the margin of error in these measurements, the choice of frame can impact whether or not a player is adjudged to be onside.
It therefore makes sense to make a certain allowance. Imo, the principle should be to favour attacking play and avoid potentially incorrect offside calls, so in order to allow for judgement errors, you should always take the position most favourable to the attacker. Extremely marginal offside calls should not therefore be considered.
The 'clean air' principle ought to allow all of those situations to be avoided, if the principle is that it is an allowance provided for offside positions that are too tight to call. In such cases, the argument of 'armpit offsides' ceases to apply, since you are working on a margin of error allowed for what would be an exact offside call.
posted on 17/5/24
comment by welshpoolfan (U7693)
posted 8 minutes ago
So your argument is because they don't show you this every time then it must mean they are "guessing"?
I've literally explained the process for you. It's not a guess, its using the best frame available.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Is the moment of the ball leaving the foot:
- assessed with the same level of evidence as is used for &
- analysed to the same degree as
the assessment of the most forward part of a player?
posted on 17/5/24
comment by it'sonlyagame (U6426)
posted 15 minutes ago
Welshpool, I think that's probably just a semantic issue. I think the gist was probably more that players intends to gain the maximum advantage, not that they intend to gain it unfairly.
As for the physics of the offside call, I ran the numbers past an AI assistant, and here are a few considerations:
A sprint speed of 29 km/h (human top speed is actually about 10km/h faster) is fractionally over 8 metres, or 800mm per second.
TV sportscasting generally runs at 60 frames per second.
Contact with the ball lasts around 12 milliseconds.
The above means that depending on the angle at which the footage is taken, you will often have two different frames in which contact appears to be made. With players running at full speed, this can account for the player looking to be onside or offside depending on the frame chosen.
Given the margin of error in these measurements, the choice of frame can impact whether or not a player is adjudged to be onside.
It therefore makes sense to make a certain allowance. Imo, the principle should be to favour attacking play and avoid potentially incorrect offside calls, so in order to allow for judgement errors, you should always take the position most favourable to the attacker. Extremely marginal offside calls should not therefore be considered.
The 'clean air' principle ought to allow all of those situations to be avoided, if the principle is that it is an allowance provided for offside positions that are too tight to call. In such cases, the argument of 'armpit offsides' ceases to apply, since you are working on a margin of error allowed for what would be an exact offside call.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
They already have allowances.
The clean air principle just means players can stand offside and there is nothing a defender can do to stop it.
Yes, there is an element of a margin of error in the system, but the amount of focus that this had received feels strange. It seems to come from a place of "if it's not perfect it shouldn't be used" but the real measure should be, is it more accurate than the alternative system (one man with a flag).
posted on 17/5/24
It seems to come from a place of "if it's not perfect it shouldn't be used"
---------
If you read back on my posts, that isn't something I've said or suggested. In fact, I've actually stated that it would be a mistake to go back to the former system of relying on the linesman's flag when we know that we have the technology in place to be able to adjudge offsides quickly and seamlessly, more so with the semi-automated system that's already in place elsewhere.
Mine is a completely separate argument: that such infinitesimally small margins are not something that either attacking or defending players can realistically make allowance for, since both sides generally judge their moves along much coarser lines.
The prevailing approach to the game is to favour rather than penalise attacking play. The current system, however, leaves sufficient margin for either to occur. If we are to observe the principle of favouring attacking play, then it would make sense to preclude the possibility of penalising perfectly valid attacking play. How to do this? My suggestions is to leave out all this 'closest part of the body with which a goal can be scored' stuff, and provide a broader margin, which would be that the entire body of the forward were closer to goal than any part of the last defender (or goalkeeper, whenever the case applies).
It's essentially taking the rule as it stands and saying, "OK, this is the rule, but were going to apply the least restrictive interpretation possible."
It is generous with the attacking intent, while it still doesn't allow for the kind of goal-hanging tactics which were the reason the rule was implemented to begin with.
As I understand it, at its heart the offside rule seeks to encourage rather than deter attacking play by giving attacking teams a tool with which to reduce its vulnerability to counter attacks, while the absence of such a rule would make teams more fearful to commit men forwards. The greater leeway in the rule is extremely unlikely to remove that incentive.
posted on 17/5/24
In fact, I haven't followed your entire discussion with Nick, but from your exchange with me what you seem to be suggesting is "it's better than the old system, so we shouldn't seek to improve on it."
I'm not saying you need to agree with my suggestion (though you seem to have misconstrued it when you say a player could simply stand behind the defender and there'd be nothing the defender could do about it, which is completely incorrect), but on the broader issue of whether or not it can be further improved, my question to you is: If there is still margin for improvement, then why not try to find a way?
posted on 17/5/24
I've not suggested they shouldn't continue to improve. The improvement will be when better tech allows for more precision.
You've said they should give an allowance for particularly tight offsides and the answer to that, as I said, was that they have already done this by incorporating thicker lines.
I don't think I have misconstrued your suggestion. Your suggestion is that the entire body of the attacker needs to be offside for an offside to count. Or, to put it another way, if a tiny part of a player is onside then he is onside.
This means, as I said, that a striker could stand effectively fully behind a defender (with just the back of his heel required to be overlapping) and wait for a ball over the top. The defender can't stop him doing this and would automatically be at a disadvantage in any footrace because of having to turn. They could try to play offside traps like back in the 90s but otherwise they are at a disadvantage.
The offside law is currently at the most lenient it has ever been, and even with VAR having greater accuracy 3 of the 4 highest scoring PL seasons have come in the last 3 seasons.
posted on 17/5/24
Would it be the end of the world to get rid of offside completely?
Page 2 of 3