Is it possible for 'the human eye' to give offside ?.

[Leekbrookgull]

Yet again we have seen some dubious offside decision's over the weekend and no doubt more to follow,but unless the passer and the receiver are extremely close is it actually possible for the 'human eye' to give offside ? To me you are asking someone to look at two place's at once.

 

[beorhthelm]

i dont think you can get technology to do it either, at least not with out half a dozen cameras moving on rails. generally they get it right and the main ones from the weekend (Chelsea) were just simply shit decisions as they where blantant offside. change the rule back to the old simpler form with out all this "interfering with play" and phases would make it easier.

 

[BensGrandad]

I read a report from a Uni in the US that had done a study of offsides both given and not given and I am sure the report said that over 75% of the decisions were wrong simply because the eye cannot possibly see both players simultaneously.

 

[banjo]

I'm not sure half the time the linesman is up with play, the game is played that much faster and then they as You quoted ..... are asking someone to look at two place's at once.

 

[Tricky Dicky]

I read a report from a Uni in the US that had done a study of offsides both given and not given and I am sure the report said that over 75% of the decisions were wrong simply because the eye cannot possibly see both players simultaneously.

The figure cannot possibly be correct - most offsides are very obvious and given correctly. There are some difficult ones, certainly, and they still get too many wrong - but ones like the first Chelsea one this w/e was just ineptitude it was so bad on the part of the lino. The second one, nobody suspected it was offseide til long after the game even after several replays. I don't know what you expect, technology isn't going to get them right either, more officials doesn't work in the CL - I say leave it as it is, try and keep getting more and more correct, but accept that mistakes can happen.

 

[BensGrandad]

The figure cannot possibly be correct - most offsides are very obvious and given correctly.

They said that nearly all of the marginal decisions were given incorrectly when analysed in detail and what seemed obvious initially wasn't such when studied hence the high %.

 

[Tricky Dicky]

marginal decisions

That wasn't what you originally said though, if you take all offsides that cannot possibly be a correct number. The refs association, which may be biased, but they say that they get 94% of all decisons correct. Even if most of the incorrect ones were offsides, it would never be 75% wrong.

 

[Vicar!]

Little known fact. It is illegal to give offside to anyone in a red shirt in Salford.

 

[BensGrandad]

If you read what I said originally; they said that 75% of all decisions were incorrect, in my 2nd part I explained, as they said that their finding were that NEARLY ALL MARGINAL decisions were wrong not 75%. Hence that reduced it to approx 75% overall.

This differs from the Refs Assoc, which it would do as they wouldn't admit failure and also the survey was taken from various levels from a number of countries not just 1 countries senior league.l

 

[Tricky Dicky]

If you read what I said originally; they said that 75% of all decisions were incorrect, in my 2nd part I explained, as they said that their finding were that NEARLY ALL MARGINAL decisions were wrong not 75%. Hence that reduced it to approx 75% overall.

This differs from the Refs Assoc, which it would do as they wouldn't admit failure and also the survey was taken from various levels from a number of countries not just 1 countries senior league.l

Still not possible. At the very worst if they got 50/50 of marginal decisions, it wouldn't amount to more than 5% of all of them.

 

[BensGrandad]

Still not possible. At the very worst if they got 50/50 of marginal decisions, it wouldn't amount to more than 5% of all of them.

I give up as you are trying, unsuccessfully to appear to be clever and pedantic.

If as they suggested nearly all the marginal decisions were wrong that could quite easily be 90%. If of the remainder including the ones that appear to be obvious it was 60/40 to the wrong decisions that would then make the overall figure in the regions of 75% assuming that both analysed were in equal numbers. I have not said that I agree with it just pointing out that a uni in the US did the survey

 

[Thunder Bolt]

A Google search found this research

The Offside Today site also refers to evidence from Spanish medical specialist Francisco Belda Maruenda that it’s physically impossible for the human eye to make correct offside decisions consistently. His findings are published in full at the British *Medical Journal website, where you can read all about saccadic movements, vergence movements, and vestibular movements (nothing to do with the latest FA coaching manual), but the only conclusion you’re interested in is: “To apply the offside rule correctly in a football game, the referee must be able to keep in his visual field at least five objects at the same time – two players of the attacking team, the last two players of the defending team, and the ball. This is beyond the capacity of the human eye, which may explain why so many offside decisions are controversial.”

 

[Tricky Dicky]

I give up as you are trying, unsuccessfully to appear to be clever and pedantic.

If as they suggested nearly all the marginal decisions were wrong that could quite easily be 90%. If of the remainder including the ones that appear to be obvious it was 60/40 to the wrong decisions that would then make the overall figure in the regions of 75% assuming that both analysed were in equal numbers. I have not said that I agree with it just pointing out that a uni in the US did the survey

An american university - says it all, they cearly know a lot about football. If you don't agree with it, I don't see why you are trying to support figures that are clearly ludicrous.

 

[seagullsovergrimsby]

An american university - says it all, they cearly know a lot about football. If you don't agree with it, I don't see why you are trying to support figures that are clearly ludicrous.

The % BG has quoted seems correct from a fans point of view , if you add up the number of times the flag goes up when a player isn't offside or level and the number of times the flag stays down when a player is offside plus taking into account which player is not interfering with play could mean 3 out of 4 decisions are wrong as they get nearly all the crucial ones incorrect. How many times during a game do you also see a throw-in awarded the wrong way , blatant free kicks ignored and corners given when it should be a goal kick ?

 

[smillie's garden]

The % BG has quoted seems correct from a fans point of view , if you add up the number of times the flag goes up when a player isn't offside or level and the number of times the flag stays down when a player is offside plus taking into account which player is not interfering with play could mean 3 out of 4 decisions are wrong as they get nearly all the crucial ones incorrect. How many times during a game do you also see a throw-in awarded the wrong way , blatant free kicks ignored and corners given when it should be a goal kick ?

Everyone involved with football has to accept that officiating a game is an imperfect endeavour. Fans should realise that these bad decisions will more or less even out over the course of a season, if not a match. The fallibility of referees is one of the best reasons for supporters to create a cauldron of noise; the twelth man can influence the ref on marginal decisions.

 

[Driver8]

Yet again we have seen some dubious offside decision's over the weekend and no doubt more to follow,but unless the passer and the receiver are extremely close is it actually possible for the 'human eye' to give offside ? To me you are asking someone to look at two place's at once.