How is that offside?

[Mucker1884]

6 minutes ago, ram59 said:

Technology is already available to make offside decisions almost fully automated.

Every player already wears device that tracks his movement on the pitch, put an accelerometer in the match balls which detects every time the ball is struck. Every time the ball is struck, an instant map of every player's tracker is produced, the decision is made from the player's tracker and will always need to be worn the same position on the body. The human element will still need to decide whether the player is interfering with play.

Obviously, all players wearing the tracker in the same place will give an advantage depending on which way the players are facing, but it would be consistent and the same for both sides.

They could get around that last problem by actually implanting the tracker to the precise centre of the player's body.

A bit like A fantastic voyage, but without the "4 men and a beautiful girl"...

https://www.google.com/search?q=fantastic+voyage+film&source=lmns&tbm=vid&bih=742&biw=1536&hl=en-GB&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjqlubylNSFAxXKTaQEHbYBDNAQ0pQJKAF6BAgBEAQ#fpstate=ive&vld=cid:27e70649,vid:dO5E4wkg0hA,st:0

 

 

[MaltRam]

If that's what we're working to, football is dead. VAR has to go. I'm not sure I could stand the Prem any more.

[sage]

4 hours ago, ck- said:

Coventry goal against Manchester United. Attacker’s left little toe nail was 1/2cm closer to the goal.

Surely that isn’t what the offside rule is for? 

Once you do a VAR check, it's either offside or it's not. If you allow a 1 inch buffer then what if someone is 2 inches off? It's a mathematical measurement.

 

[Gritstone Ram]

1 hour ago, RoyMac5 said:

Nope. The big clubs with money didn't accept that referees made human decisions. 

VAR should only be used for things like line calls, yes or no. You have to laugh that there's not a line call on things like corners or throw-ins, but is there on a bit of a boot is offside!

The thinking is that if it leads to a goal. You could always argue the other way that it didn’t lead to a goal because the decision wasn’t called.

[Boycie]

The way I see it is that man united were happy with the goal being ruled off side.  Coventry fans would have been happy if it was man united who’d scored the winning goal and it’d been chalked off.  Swings and roundabouts 

Dancing with the devil.

[sage]

When go on about goals being disallowed, because of VAR tight calls are ignored as it will be checked.

Without VAR, there's a good chance the lino would have flagged it offside.

VAR is one of those things like Brexit and children, most people wanted it until they had to live with it.

 

[Gee SCREAMER !!]

Very unfortunate with the disallowed goal today.

However, when they were in the s*** and about to be bought by asset strippers SISU for a pound,  they got a lot of support from Derby as we had previously been their target.

When we were in the s*** and a few months from going under, they gave us a rounding rendition of Derby County die and started throwing s*** at our fans.

So feck em

[mozza]

Click the 'still' back one frame, he's onside, click it forward one frame, he's off. Too close to call and goal should have stood, very unlucky Coventry, you've been had..

[Alty_Ram]

18 hours ago, Highgate said:

Yeah you can never be sure if the action has been stopped at precisely the right moment or not.  But if you introduce a margin of error, won't the debate just switch to whether the toenail was within the margin of error line or not, rather than whether it was ahead or behind the last defender?  Whatever criterion is used, whether it's offside by any amount, margin or error or 'clear daylight' between the players, the decision will often come down to judgement calls based on millimetres. 

I'd be happy to bin VAR altogether and go back to best guess by the officials.  At least then people could go back to celebrating goals naturally when they occur.  

I appreciate that some think VAR is a step in the right direction the above is the argument in a nutshell for me. Is the 'correct by a toenail' forensic approach worth it when it is seemingly so flawed/ambiguous on tight decisions anyway ? The original explanation/justification was that VAR was essentially there to correct big errors and injustices. I'm just not convinced 'drawing lines' on a screen and spending sometimes several minutes making at best dubiously 'accurate' decisions on the tightest of tight calls, is really addressing the problem.

The crushing of the spontaneity of goal celebrations for frankly impossible to call decisions in a fast moving and highly emotional spectator sport is (IMHO) simply not worth the sacrifice as a spectacle, though I appreciate that many wouldn't agree.

[ariotofmyown]

Isn't in MLS where they watch one replay in real time, and if they are sure it's wrong decision, they change it. Seems a better way of doing it.

Remember the first World Cup they got VAR in, it was ace. Penalties given for holding in the box, so players stopped doing it. Don't remember any of this penalty handball or offside nonsense.

How did it end up in this mess? Maybe a quick solution is to give teams a couple of appeals like in cricket. Let them use it on anything, corners, yellow cards. They'll use them up in first 2 mins appealing for a throw in.

[Gee SCREAMER !!]

27 minutes ago, ariotofmyown said:

Isn't in MLS where they watch one replay in real time, and if they are sure it's wrong decision, they change it. Seems a better way of doing it.

Remember the first World Cup they got VAR in, it was ace. Penalties given for holding in the box, so players stopped doing it. Don't remember any of this penalty handball or offside nonsense.

How did it end up in this mess? Maybe a quick solution is to give teams a couple of appeals like in cricket. Let them use it on anything, corners, yellow cards. They'll use them up in first 2 mins appealing for a throw in.

Something I suggested when it came out but that would be too simple.

[bcnram]

The decision should only be overturned if it is ' a clear and obvious mistake'. The ref in front of the screen only has to take a look and decide that is too close to call so the goal stands. 

[Tamworthram]

26 minutes ago, bcnram said:

The decision should only be overturned if it is ' a clear and obvious mistake'. The ref in front of the screen only has to take a look and decide that is too close to call so the goal stands. 

This.

[TimRam]

18 hours ago, MaltRam said:

If that's what we're working to, football is dead. VAR has to go. I'm not sure I could stand the Prem any more.

Wonder how many other potential "classic" games are going to be ruined. The use is bad enough but having fans cheer a goal then having to wait minutes for it to be confirmed is killing the game. That Cov v Man U was destined to be remembered as one of the greats. Now just a footnote as another Man U win.

Edited April 22 by TimRam

[Highgate]

2 hours ago, bcnram said:

The decision should only be overturned if it is ' a clear and obvious mistake'. The ref in front of the screen only has to take a look and decide that is too close to call so the goal stands. 

That seems reasonable, but then you might find that people would disagree about what is 'clear and obvious'.  If fact people definitely would. What's clear and obvious to one person is marginal and debatable to another person.  

[Grimbeard]

4 hours ago, Highgate said:

That seems reasonable, but then you might find that people would disagree about what is 'clear and obvious'.  If fact people definitely would. What's clear and obvious to one person is marginal and debatable to another person.  

The only opinion that would matter would be the ref's, just as it always used to be. But now he would have the opportunity to review his desicion to help eliminate glaring errors.

[Highgate]

1 hour ago, Grimbeard said:

The only opinion that would matter would be the ref's, just as it always used to be. But now he would have the opportunity to review his desicion to help eliminate glaring errors.

And when the ref reviews a decision, and it looks like the on-field decision was wrong but not glaringly wrong, what then?  He upholds the original almost certainly incorrect decision?  I think that would be a route to even more controversy.  

[Grimbeard]

26 minutes ago, Highgate said:

And when the ref reviews a decision, and it looks like the on-field decision was wrong but not glaringly wrong, what then?  He upholds the original almost certainly incorrect decision?  I think that would be a route to even more controversy.  

If it's not an obvious howler, the original decision stands, and we live with it.

Referee errors are just part of the game. Over the last 150 odd years there will have been thousands of wrong calls, but that's still better than the current system that's sucking all the joy from the game.

 

[Highgate]

1 hour ago, Grimbeard said:

If it's not an obvious howler, the original decision stands, and we live with it.

Referee errors are just part of the game. Over the last 150 odd years there will have been thousands of wrong calls, but that's still better than the current system that's sucking all the joy from the game.

 

Except I don't think we'd live with it, anymore than we lived with referee's mistakes before VAR or we are happy to live with the VAR shambles as it's operating now.  Chuck VAR in the bin.  We tried it, fair enough it was worth an attempt, but it's sucking the life out of the game (I'm in complete agreement with you there) as well as creating nearly as many controversies as it solves. 

[R@M]

On 21/04/2024 at 21:46, Mucker1884 said:

They could get around that last problem by actually implanting the tracker to the precise centre of the player's body.

A bit like A fantastic voyage, but without the "4 men and a beautiful girl"...