[Albion] Gross goal offside?

[nickbrighton]

, and they have to get the best frame to represent time of ball contact.

and this is why using the current system for offsides is wrong, the technology, camera angles, frame rate all mean that its not possible to be accurate, and when they are ruling offside by cms, the distance the player travels between frames is greater than the distance they are ruling them offside. Why they persist it pretending its definitive is beyond me. Along with a lot of fans, id prefer they just used the asistant refs, accept some would be wrong but not that many, and would do away with these ridiculous offside by a toenail decisions, which is not what the rule is there to stop

 

[Paulie Gualtieri]

His knee was clearly offside and was ahead of the ball

It was pretty clear to the naked eye (without the lines) about 15 seconds into the analysis on the TV coverage at the time, not sure why they needed an extra 3.5 minutes

 

[raymondo]

I think they should use an elaborate matrix of lasers to measure everybody's exact position in real time.
It would also significantly increase the risk of blinding the players, but I think that's a price worth paying.

Yes, I think so, possibly with a Doppler effect meter to measure relative acceleration of players as the frames are just points in time. Would that work .

 

[dazzer6666]

Not sure why clear and obvious doesn't apply though. Either they were clearly and obviously off-side or not and that is all it needs to be (bringing back the advantage to the attacking player once again) however the people behind how it's implemented have taken clear and obvious to apply purely to either they were on or off side, and clear and obvious means that the wrong signal by the assistant referee is when a clear and obvious mistake has been made (yet many times there hasn't been a single person even appealing for offside) so it's being used to strictly

VAR wasn't meant to be a forensic examination to determine if there was a toe nail in an offside position or not but that is how it's being used. It should have been more for things like Thierry Henry's handball in the lead up to France's goal which help beat Ireland in a World Cup qualifying play-off match

The old rules used to give an advantage to the attacking player, surely if it is not obvious that they are offside when the ball is struck and they need those lines, then it shouldn't be overturned and the on-field ruling should stand.

Yep - too much precision being applied (which isn't supported by camera fpm etc). Should be an 'umpires call' type margin where unless it's clearly offside then it's not chalked off - just then need a year of arguing over what is 'clearly offside'. Didn't Wenger propose something like actual daylight between attacker and defender ?

 

[raymondo]

Worth a watch

 

[Sid and the Sharknados]

Yes, I think so, possibly with a Doppler effect meter to measure relative acceleration of players as the frames are just points in time. Would that work .

Can a player ever truly be offside if space/time is a continuous plane?
Yes. Yes they can.

 

[portlock seagull]

Var has killed the game we used to love. And yesterday is perfect example of. Still we legacy lot will soon be dead and the younger generations will soon know no better and aren’t the protest type.

 

[sussex_guy2k2]

His knee was clearly offside and was ahead of the ball

It was pretty clear to the naked eye (without the lines) about 15 seconds into the analysis on the TV coverage at the time, not sure why they needed an extra 3.5 minutes

Was it? I’m not trying to be facetious but I thought the TV coverage of it in real time was horrible. They didn’t show a clear image at any point that clarified why it was offside or whether the lines were being drawn from the defender or the ball.

Maybe one’s been released since, but it certainly wasn’t yesterday. And I thought he was onside, including his knee, as that was in line with where the ball was being played from.

But hey ho, them’s the breaks.

 

[dazzer6666]

Worth a watch

Really interesting - thanks

The offside palaver could be simplified……too marginal to be ruled off imo anyway…..but the penalty discussion was actually pretty decent (and would have been reached way quicker if the offside didn’t need discussion, either through having bigger margins or an automated decision). Audio should be relayed in the ground and on TV coverage real-time too.

 

[sussex_guy2k2]

Worth a watch

Wtf is this? They change the lines to make him offside.

Honestly, the level of incompetence is heart breaking.

 

[jackanada]

Worth a watch

If the lines had been different and the goal had been awarded, they wouldn't have gone back to check the penalty claims and there would have been no red card.

 

[raymondo]

Yes, it was an interesting video/ discussion clip. Raised some questions as well as answering some.
Tbo... I was surprised Romero got a red for it. I'm no fan of him and his ways, but I just felt it was a (poor) follow through after getting the ball, and so a yellow and a pen. Maybe var thought it was premeditated.

 

[Seagull58]

Not sure why clear and obvious doesn't apply though. Either they were clearly and obviously off-side or not and that is all it needs to be (bringing back the advantage to the attacking player once again) however the people behind how it's implemented have taken clear and obvious to apply purely to either they were on or off side, and clear and obvious means that the wrong signal by the assistant referee is when a clear and obvious mistake has been made (yet many times there hasn't been a single person even appealing for offside) so it's being used to strictly

VAR wasn't meant to be a forensic examination to determine if there was a toe nail in an offside position or not but that is how it's being used. It should have been more for things like Thierry Henry's handball in the lead up to France's goal which help beat Ireland in a World Cup qualifying play-off match

The old rules used to give an advantage to the attacking player, surely if it is not obvious that they are offside when the ball is struck and they need those lines, then it shouldn't be overturned and the on-field ruling should stand.

Yet we see situations regularly where the lino puts his flag up because he is "obviously" offside and VAR then shows the lino got it wrong. Offside is a factual decision based on the relative positions of the attacker, the ball and 2 defenders at a point in time as defined in the offside law. How would you define "clearly and obviously" offside?You could apply an "umpires call" such as 3 inches or 6 inches past the defensive line but then you have to determine if he is 6 inches past or only 5 1/2 inches past.

 

[Giraffe]

In fairness this was one I half celebrated as I tend to if Gross is clear of his man. Let’s face it his pace isn’t going to achieve that without an advantage!

 

[A1X]

Looked offside from where I was (square on) and everything I’ve seen online (including shots showing the ball) says it was offside.

 

[Jim in the West]

Worth a watch

Fascinating - a pretty complex situation with two potential penalties, a red card, and a marginal offside, all in the space of a few seconds.....made me glad that I'm not a ref!

 

[Morvangull]

Not sure why clear and obvious doesn't apply though. Either they were clearly and obviously off-side or not and that is all it needs to be (bringing back the advantage to the attacking player once again) however the people behind how it's implemented have taken clear and obvious to apply purely to either they were on or off side, and clear and obvious means that the wrong signal by the assistant referee is when a clear and obvious mistake has been made (yet many times there hasn't been a single person even appealing for offside) so it's being used to strictly

VAR wasn't meant to be a forensic examination to determine if there was a toe nail in an offside position or not but that is how it's being used. It should have been more for things like Thierry Henry's handball in the lead up to France's goal which help beat Ireland in a World Cup qualifying play-off match

The old rules used to give an advantage to the attacking player, surely if it is not obvious that they are offside when the ball is struck and they need those lines, then it shouldn't be overturned and the on-field ruling should stand.

I entirely agree. Before VAR it was down to the linesman (assistant referee) to determine offside in his/her instant judgement. Therefore, surely the VAR check should be just on a visual check and unless it is an clearly a wrong decision, the onfield decision should be upheld.

 

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

I think they got the lines right with the ball and his foot, and was just offside the way they interpret the rules these days.

That's the bigger issue in my eyes, the law / rules / whatever says that if the attacker is level with the last defender, he is onside. Under any reasonable definition Gross is level with the defender. As was Dunk at Everton, as was McGinn yesterday, as was the case in so many stupidly disallowed goals.

With clear blue daylight, and VAR officials watching the f***ing game (rather than sitting in their VAR capsule at Stockley Park, and doing coke while being noshed off by an intern), VAR would be tremendous.

Twenty second decision or 'you're ok, on-field ref, mate'. Bosh.

As it is now, after years defending it, it rather it spend some time in the sea

 

[Badger]

I actually didn't mind this goal being ruled out. My stream cut out about 30 seconds before the goal and when I got it working again the first thing I saw was the VAR offside frame.

 

[TWOCHOICEStom]

I actually didn't mind this goal being ruled out. My stream cut out about 30 seconds before the goal and when I got it working again the first thing I saw was the VAR offside frame.

That's because as soon as people get a notification they all log onto the streaming sites to see the goal which is usually a minute or so behind!


Anyway back on topic. I'd love to just bin VAR off forever tbh.