[Football] 2019/20 Premier League VAR decisions

[Algernon]

The training bra that we see players wearing under their shirts could surely have a sensor sown in centrally over the sternum that can be read by a positioning system in the ground. There's something sown into the footballs used nowadays to allow goal line technology to be accurate and decisive. We also get "heat mapping" now too.
Or maybe just inject a location device under the skin just behind the ear, just don't let the wife get hold of the tracker.

 

[Bold Seagull]

But you have to have a line, you can’t say ‘oh well it was close’. How close is close?

VAR is an awful thing, but with offsides it has to be black and white.

It can’t be though, a ball compresses when it hits the boot, it’s contact with the foot or head cannot be accurately measured so the exact moment it ‘leaves’ a player is a best guess looking at a frame of a camera shot. It’s therefore not black and white because the technology has a margin of error. 1 frame earlier that could be onside. If there are variables in the technology that tolerance has to be included in the decision making i.e. like more than half the ball in cricket has to be shown to be hitting the stumps for a not out lbw appeal to be overturned.

 

[brightn'ove]

You're right. Every week there's lots of complaints in Germany, Italy and Spain about how bad it is

There really isn’t.

 

[Acker79]

I have still not seen anyone explain properly what “clear and obvious error” means with offside. Some say it should be daylight but then there will be a mm between no daylight and daylight. There is always going to be a line. If people just accept it and stop moaning it will become an exciting part of the game - as wickets are with cricket. I see little point in making an objective measure subjective.

The whole 'daylight' thing is a vaguery some fans suggest should be part of the law that doesn't factor in angles, body shape, and sll sorts of things that can lead to daylight between players in very tight decisions anyway. It's nonsense and people should just ignore it as an idea to add to the offside law.


The offside law is binary. You are onside or you are offside. Offside by a millimetre is offside. It is as much an offside as being offside by 10 yards. If you are offside you cannot legally score a goal. If you score a goal when you are offside, it is a clear and obvious error to allow the goal to stand.

 

[Acker79]

It can’t be though, a ball compresses when it hits the boot, it’s contact with the foot or head cannot be accurately measured so the exact moment it ‘leaves’ a player is a best guess looking at a frame of a camera shot. It’s therefore not black and white because the technology has a margin of error. 1 frame earlier that could be onside. If there are variables in the technology that tolerance has to be included in the decision making i.e. like more than half the ball in cricket has to be shown to be hitting the stumps for a not out lbw appeal to be overturned.

The law doesn't say offside is the moment the ball leaves the player's foot, but the moment the player 'plays' the ball. This encapsulates the whole moment of kicking it, from the fraction of a second between contact starting and finishing, and probably can be argued to include that moment before contact when the foot has been swung and can't be pulled.

 

[Bold Seagull]

The whole 'daylight' thing is a vaguery some fans suggest should be part of the law that doesn't factor in angles, body shape, and sll sorts of things that can lead to daylight between players in very tight decisions anyway. It's nonsense and people should just ignore it as an idea to add to the offside law.


The offside law is binary. You are onside or you are offside. Offside by a millimetre is offside. It is as much an offside as being offside by 10 yards. If you are offside you cannot legally score a goal. If you score a goal when you are offside, it is a clear and obvious error to allow the goal to stand.

Offside is only binary if you had the technology to precisely tell you the exact moment the ball leaves the player - is that 1mm off their boot, 0.5mm? And at that exact moment you have to map the exact point of the body you could score with, so where does a shoulder start and arm end exactly?

If you have these questions, then it’s not binary because it’s an interpretation. The technology can only interpret what’s it programmed to do. You slow a ball leaving a foot right down and it will span several frames. It’s not accurate enough, the law isn’t clear enough for it to be binary.

 

[Bold Seagull]

The law doesn't say offside is the moment the ball leaves the player's foot, but the moment the player 'plays' the ball. This encapsulates the whole moment of kicking it, from the fraction of a second between contact starting and finishing, and probably can be argued to include that moment before contact when the foot has been swung and can't be pulled.

Exactly, so you’ve proved the point it’s not binary because that part of the law is an interpretation.

 

[Acker79]

Exactly, so you’ve proved the point it’s not binary because that part of the law is an interpretation.

No I haven't. I've proved the point 'daylight' with offsides is nonsense. That is not the same as 'part of the body with which you can legally score a goal being closest to the goal'.

Edit to clarify:
Think of two different size Xs. You can overlap them so that the points (the end of the lines) of one X is further to the right than the other, but there be a gap between the two centre points (where the lines intersect). Depending on the difference in size, the points of the x can be significantly forward of the other, while there is still a gap between the two centre points.

You can still categorically state which X has points furthest to the right.

 

[trueblue]

Yes, it is. The video shows he is, by the current definition of the law, offside. You cannot score a goal if you are offside. To allow a goal to stand when you know a player is offside is a clear and obvious error.

The offside itself is marginal, but that's not where 'clear and obvious' is applied. And there is no provision in the current law for gradations of offside. You are on or off. He was off, ergo he cannot legally score.

As Lineker pointed out, that's not quite true as it's impossible to judge the EXACT frame of video that the ball was kicked and, when the image is blurred, impossible to judge that a player's armpit is a centimetre offside. Goal-line technology is different as the posts and goal-line don't move, and the tracking system is phenomenally accurate.

Broadly I'm in favour of VAR but I think the offside law needs amendment to reflect its original purpose - or the very tightest calls could be allowed to stand (which probably would cause more controversy than it's worth).

 

[trueblue]

The only problem will be that those extra minutes will be spent watching prats like Mike Dean standing about with his finger in his ear, whilst 30k plus people wonder what’s going on.
And being unable to celebrate or indeed shrug when either my team or the opposition score.

Did you hold back on cheering as the goals racked up at Watford? Because all of those were checked by VAR.

 

[brightn'ove]

As Lineker pointed out, that's not quite true as it's impossible to judge the EXACT frame of video that the ball was kicked and, when the image is blurred, impossible to judge that a player's armpit is a centimetre offside. Goal-line technology is different as the posts and goal-line don't move, and the tracking system is phenomenally accurate.

Broadly I'm in favour of VAR but I think the offside law needs amendment to reflect its original purpose - or the very tightest calls could be allowed to stand (which probably would cause more controversy than it's worth).

I understand the argument about frames, I think that whoever is managing the systems used by VAR need to explain exactly what type of footage or technology they are using - I highly doubt it is the 50 frames per second feed we get given on the tv, but they still use the tv broadcast to show the decision. I’ve read that they use Hawkeye and 3d projection to make the decisions, I also wonder if they are using some kind of snicko from the effect mics to determine when the ball leaves the foot also.

 

[Acker79]

As Lineker pointed out, that's not quite true as it's impossible to judge the EXACT frame of video that the ball was kicked and, when the image is blurred, impossible to judge that a player's armpit is a centimetre offside. Goal-line technology is different as the posts and goal-line don't move, and the tracking system is phenomenally accurate.

Former players are great for discussions on tactics, what it's like on the pitch, and how they think the rules should be. They are not great for how the laws are, or how the lawmakers want them applied. Lineker also falls into the tv host category, where controversy is king, if he comes on and simply accepts every decision the show would be boring. His opinion isn't the last word in football.

We're not using VHS tapes. As mentioned before the law is about 'playing' the ball, it doesn't say 'the moment your foot initiates contact with the ball' or 'the moment the ball leaves the foot'. The 'play' terminology allows for there to be absolute confidence, with HD technology and high frame rate technology which is which common place these days, that they are freezing the frame at the right point.

Broadly I'm in favour of VAR but I think the offside law needs amendment to reflect its original purpose

I don't dispute this.

- or the very tightest calls could be allowed to stand (which probably would cause more controversy than it's worth).

Which is why they have taken the current approach. If the technology we have on hand now, the most accurate available, shows he is offside, it has to be treated as such.

 

[Sussex Nomad]

Can I not be the thread starter please, seeing as I didn't actually start it? Did I? No I definitely didn't.

 

[Nobby]

Did you hold back on cheering as the goals racked up at Watford? Because all of those were checked by VAR.

Yep. Didn’t want to be disappointed if they ruled it out. Still operated by useless officials

VAR Ha Ha Ha

 

[PILTDOWN MAN]

So the screens show the crowd VAR is being used to check a decision. What happens at shitholes like Old Trafford where they have squeezed in 20000 extra seats (only able to filled by very small people) leaving no room for a portable TV let alone a large screen?

 

[macbeth]

Broadly I'm in favour of VAR but I think the offside law needs amendment to reflect its original purpose

This

 

[Acker79]

So the screens show the crowd VAR is being used to check a decision. What happens at shitholes like Old Trafford where they have squeezed in 20000 extra seats (only able to filled by very small people) leaving no room for a portable TV let alone a large screen?

PA system. That applies to two grounds, I believe, but can't remember the other one.

 

[PILTDOWN MAN]

PA system. That applies to two grounds, I believe, but can't remember the other one.

Liverpool?

 

[Acker79]

Liverpool?

Yup.

 

[Acker79]

Leicester 0-0 Wolves. Visitors had a goal disallowed by VAR for handball in the build up.
https://www.skysports.com/football/leicester-vs-wolves/407985

Highlight video in that article. Corner played in, two wolves players jump to head it, one heads it onto the arm of the other, one of them is the first to react to the ball and put it in. New handball rules say any time the ball strikes the arm and it leads to a goal, it will be given as a handball, deliberate or not, arm away from the body or not. So a pretty clear cut decision.