How is that offside?

[Grimbeard]

18 hours ago, Highgate said:

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. 

I agree, chuck it out. And put up with the mistakes, isn't that what living with it means?

[Alty_Ram]

On 22/04/2024 at 16:30, TimRam said:

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.

But yay, we got the decision 'right' ... well possibly.. or possibly not.. assuming the line drawing is infallible which based on the pics of the Cov vs United line-drawing seems not to be. I think that fundamentally VAR delivers accuracy in the tens of centimetres at best but the modern game is asking for for decisions to be made to centimetre accuracy and I'm just not convinced that VAR can deliver that.

I feel that if an instant 'that was an incorrect decision' can't be made then it should just stand and we move on. VAR officials are getting a lot of stick but they are being asked to do brain surgery in boxing gloves. It just isn't fit for purpose for a lot of these incredibly tight decisions. We can draw two lines for an offside and once that's done we can tell you 100% whether the blue line is nearer the goal than the red line as we have drawn them, but what if we simply can't assign that level of confidence with the drawing of those lines ?

[maxjam]

The problem with VAR having those lines on the pitch and checking to see whether player A has a bigger foot than player B comes down to the frame the decide to use as reference.  If we're going to say a player is 5mm offside, exactly how sure you are of the millisecond the ball has been played?  

VAR was bought into correct the obvious errors, not bring offside decisions down to ridiculous margins - especially given the fact that it is impossible to tell the exact time the ball has left the foot of the player making the pass.  A quick fix would be to thicken the lines used and unless you can see daylight between them, its onside.

 

[Stive Pesley]

2 minutes ago, maxjam said:

The problem with VAR having those lines on the pitch and checking to see whether player A has a bigger foot than player B comes down to the frame the decide to use as reference.  If we're going to say a player is 5mm offside, exactly how sure you are of the millisecond the ball has been played?  

VAR was bought into correct the obvious errors, not bring offside decisions down to ridiculous margins - especially given the fact that it is impossible to tell the exact time the ball has left the foot of the player making the pass.  A quick fix would be to thicken the lines used and unless you can see daylight between them, its onside.

 

You know if you watch slowmo footage of someone kicking a ball, that the foot touches the ball, the ball compresses at the point of impact and then the momentum force transfers into the ball and the ball, uncompresses and changes direction, and then contact between the foot and the ball is lost. This process all takes about 0.2 seconds. Depending on the frame rate of the video footage, you could be looking at anything from 5 to 10 frames in that time.

There is no way at that distance that you can see the precise moment that a gap appears between the foot and the ball, so you can't possibly choose the "correct" frame. At which point you can argue that sub-conscious bias has to come into play. That Coventry decision could have been interpreted either way but it went the way of the "big" team

For me, the only solution is to introduce a rule that says, where there is doubt/borderline footage - just give the advantage to the attacking team and accept that VAR can never be a precise science. As the saying goes "it will all even itself out over a season"

That's the only way to preserve the entertainment factor. Otherwise you just kill the game and goal celebrations become a thing of the past

 

[Ram-Alf]

On 22/04/2024 at 13:47, ariotofmyown said:

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.

What happened to "clear and obvious", Our game is now being sanitised and forensically examined by those who have influence...IFAB, EUFA, FIFA even our officials are getting in on the act as they're so confused to what is...isn't.

How may of those pens the red dogs were turned down would have been given by another official or at Anfield, Old Trafford, The Emirates?  

[TimRam]

1 hour ago, Alty_Ram said:

But yay, we got the decision 'right' ... well possibly.. or possibly not.. assuming the line drawing is infallible which based on the pics of the Cov vs United line-drawing seems not to be. I think that fundamentally VAR delivers accuracy in the tens of centimetres at best but the modern game is asking for for decisions to be made to centimetre accuracy and I'm just not convinced that VAR can deliver that.

I feel that if an instant 'that was an incorrect decision' can't be made then it should just stand and we move on. VAR officials are getting a lot of stick but they are being asked to do brain surgery in boxing gloves. It just isn't fit for purpose for a lot of these incredibly tight decisions. We can draw two lines for an offside and once that's done we can tell you 100% whether the blue line is nearer the goal than the red line as we have drawn them, but what if we simply can't assign that level of confidence with the drawing of those lines ?

I see where you are coming from....line drawing on a screen is not football.

[maydrakin]

I’m of the view that if we do have clear and obvious errors, they should be exactly that.

If the VAR can’t pick up on it at real time within watching a replay on a monitor in the time it takes to be ready for the resultant kick off, then it’s not clear and obvious and the decision stands.

Or just scrap the whole thing… (unfortunately there is too much money at stake, which ruins everything.)

[Mucker1884]

1 hour ago, Stive Pesley said:

You know if you watch slowmo footage of someone kicking a ball, that the foot touches the ball, the ball compresses at the point of impact and then the momentum force transfers into the ball and the ball, uncompresses and changes direction, and then contact between the foot and the ball is lost. This process all takes about 0.2 seconds. Depending on the frame rate of the video footage, you could be looking at anything from 5 to 10 frames in that time.

There is no way at that distance that you can see the precise moment that a gap appears between the foot and the ball, so you can't possibly choose the "correct" frame. At which point you can argue that sub-conscious bias has to come into play. That Coventry decision could have been interpreted either way but it went the way of the "big" team

For me, the only solution is to introduce a rule that says, where there is doubt/borderline footage - just give the advantage to the attacking team and accept that VAR can never be a precise science. As the saying goes "it will all even itself out over a season"

That's the only way to preserve the entertainment factor. Otherwise you just kill the game and goal celebrations become a thing of the past

 

I see you refer to "the precise moment that a gap appears between the foot and the ball" (i.e. when contact twixt foot and ball is completed.)

I'd argue it needs to be when that gap first disappears... when foot first makes contact with said ball, and thus before all compressions are effected.
Firstly, that would occur sooner, thus giving the "advantage" to the attacker.  And secondly, I'm a complete arse, and just wanted to pooh-pooh your theory for the craic!

 

Either way, we need to add more cameras, more eyes in the shed at the bottom of the garden, more monitors, some "infra-red tangent threads" (Patent pending) on the ball, and some sort of beeper that marries the ball contact with the attacker's position.
Oh... and more time for the experts to digest the given information before confirming to the excited audience whether they have just witnessed a goal... or not!

Simples!