[Albion] Offside?

[Nixonator]

View attachment 169244
Whilst I would've loved it to have been onside, it's clear that the line is drawn from Dunk's sleeve, as is Tarkowski's, the frame they chose is with Gross' foot touching the ball (at the moment the ball is played - as per law 11, Why would an image before the ball was touched matter at all?).

There is overwhelming evidence that it is offside. Look it was a great finish, and a joy to watch live, but for me, there are hundreds of more subjective issues to do with refereeing rather than rubbishing this one. It's just a shame because it's so tight and such a quality strike.

Taking all of this into account, why did it take 4 minutes (2 from when the VAR check screen went up in ground), to get to what is ultimately an objective decision, aided by technology?

The ball is in the air in this image. Do you have an image of when the ball was actually played?

 

[Beanstalk]

View attachment 169246

That's anything but clear.

I mean, even from that pixelated image, it's clear to me that both of those lines use the same point of the arm (the sleeve) as the point of reference for both players.

 

[Beanstalk]

The ball is in the air in this image. Do you have an image of when the ball was actually played?

The ball isn't in the air. It's in motion but still touching Pascal Gross' foot. As I've previously said, logically, the previous frame would've been before the touch and only a fiftieth of a second previous to this. It is incredibly unlikely that the situation changes so dramatically that two players running in the same direction are in different enough places to rule it out.

This of course wouldn't be an issue if we had semi-automated offsides, but the clubs voted against that one. Can't even blame the useless PGMOL for that.

 

[Nixonator]

The ball isn't in the air. It's in motion but still touching Pascal Gross' foot. As I've previously said, logically, the previous frame would've been before the touch and only a fiftieth of a second previous to this. It is incredibly unlikely that the situation changes so dramatically that two players running in the same direction are in different enough places to rule it out.

This of course wouldn't be an issue if we had semi-automated offsides, but the clubs voted against that one. Can't even blame the useless PGMOL for that.

It is not unlikely considering Dunk is running at faster speed than Tarkowski who is backpedaling.

 

[Easy 10]

I remember when level was considered onside, and you were supposed to give the benefit of the doubt to the attacker.

Well, VAR has proper shat all over that, hasn't it.

 

[Thunder Bolt]

It is not unlikely considering Dunk is running at faster speed than Tarkowski who is backpedaling.

As pointed out previously, with set pieces, attacking players are facing the goal, and defending players are watching the kicker to see the direction of flight. Gross and Dunk would've rehearsed this move on the training ground.

 

[Thunder Bolt]

I remember when level was considered onside, and you were supposed to give the benefit of the doubt to the attacker.

Well, VAR has proper shat all over that, hasn't it.

In a nutshell, Easy, in a nutshell.

 

[Audax]

The ball isn't in the air. It's in motion but still touching Pascal Gross' foot. As I've previously said, logically, the previous frame would've been before the touch and only a fiftieth of a second previous to this. It is incredibly unlikely that the situation changes so dramatically that two players running in the same direction are in different enough places to rule it out.

This of course wouldn't be an issue if we had semi-automated offsides, but the clubs voted against that one. Can't even blame the useless PGMOL for that.

The ball is a sphere, unlike in Rugby. So in that image, the spherical ball is at the point closest to the goal when that freeze-frame is taken. There is motion blur that extends back to Gross's foot, which is still near the ground. There is absolutely no chance at all that the ball was actually still in contact with the boot at the moment this freeze frame was taken. None.

Furthermore, the rule this season is that the the armpit should be used for offside decisions. Not the sleeve. So this VAR decision was made on incorrect evidence on two counts:

1. The ball was already in flight. If this was the "closest" freeze frame they could get, then allowance should be made that it is "late".
2. The lines are drawn incorrectly (according to the directions for this season), to the disadvantage of Dunk.

 

[Hamilton]

It was offside. They got there in the end. A huge shame because it was a great goal.

I cannot fathom how or why it took over 2 minutes to get to a decision. It's the clubs' fault of course. Would've been clear as day if they'd bothered, like all other European leagues, to put semi-automated offsides in place for this season. Utterly bizarre to vote against something that at the very least, gives clarity to everyone on a tight decision.

But was it offside?

I keep looking at that picture and I fail to see how Dunk was anything other than level.

This isn't blue and white spectables. If the boot was on the other foot I'd think the same. I can't see how it was clearly and obviously offside.

 

[Beanstalk]

But was it offside?

I keep looking at that picture and I fail to see how Dunk was anything other than level.

This isn't blue and white spectables. If the boot was on the other foot I'd think the same. I can't see how it was clearly and obviously offside.

This is a good point. I'd argue that with VAR, level only exists as a theoretical possibility. The law states you are offside if: any part of the head, body or feet is nearer to the opponents' goal line than both the ball and the second-last opponent. If we're measuring down to the mm (which we basically are now) then the possibility of actually being level is tiny.

BUT the game has always been played with players being level as not only a possibility but a regular occurrence. So, to be ridiculously pretentious about it, the question around VAR that has always remained unanswered, is can Dunk be level? and if so, what constitutes level if the law states that being ahead is actually offside?

 

[Albion Andy]

So much debate on this thread but I think I can clear it up for everyone. DUNK WAS ONSIDE.

 

[Beanstalk]

It is not unlikely considering Dunk is running at faster speed than Tarkowski who is backpedaling.

So Kyle Walker, at full speed, was clocked as running at 37kmph last season. That's about 10 metres per second. So at full pelt the furthest a player travelled in the Premier League in the whole of last season is 20cm in a VAR frame (50fps).

Firstly, we all know Dunk is considerably slower than Kyle Walker's top speed. Secondly, this isn't Dunk's top speed at all, he's probably, due to the context of the situation (trying to time his run, watching the flight of the ball etc.) going at considerably less than half of the top possible speed. Dunk and Tarkowski are both moving in the same direction, but even at wildly different speeds it is hard to imagine that between frames you'd be seeing anything close to a movement of more than 7cm between frames and the difference between the two would be considerably smaller.

Sorry to be such a nerd and pedant, but factually it is so unlikely that there is any discernible difference in Dunk and Tarkowski's position between the frame shown and the previous one.

 

[AZ Gull]

So much debate on this thread but I think I can clear it up for everyone. DUNK WAS ONSIDE.

In recent weeks I have become fascinated by posters who are suddenly making their first post YEARS after initially signing up to the forum.
Almost nine years @Albion Andy - welcome!
Just out of curiosity: why now? A lot has happened in nine years - why has a controversial decision in a run-of-the-mill match at Goodison Park suddenly caused you to hit that "Post reply" button?

 

[Bodian]

His foot is still touching the ball though.

Not quite sure how you have reached that conclusion. Look at his kicking leg in relation to the front of the ball.

If his foot was still touching the ball, then his leg would have been shown blurred to the same degree as the ball.

It isn't, because presuambly his leg was moving slower than the ball - which is what usually happens when you kick a ball.

 

[pb21]

I mean, even from that pixelated image, it's clear to me that both of those lines use the same point of the arm (the sleeve) as the point of reference for both players.

Looks like the line is on Dunk's elbow rather than the edge of his shoulder as i is for the Everton player. The below looks more equal.

 

[Hamilton]

This is a good point. I'd argue that with VAR, level only exists as a theoretical possibility. The law states you are offside if: any part of the head, body or feet is nearer to the opponents' goal line than both the ball and the second-last opponent. If we're measuring down to the mm (which we basically are now) then the possibility of actually being level is tiny.

BUT the game has always been played with players being level as not only a possibility but a regular occurrence. So, to be ridiculously pretentious about it, the question around VAR that has always remained unanswered, is can Dunk be level? and if so, what constitutes level if the law states that being ahead is actually offside?

I think the answer is that if he looks level, then he's level. I very much doubt that the technology is sufficiently robust to do it by itself, and as the cross hair lines are presently manually drawn on by the VAR officials then there is certainly room to argue that Dunk was level. Until we have automatic Hawkeye levels of tech (and we should remember Hawkeye in many sports is dealing with static lines rather than dynamic lines thus adding to the complexity) then we aren't in mm measurement territory.

 

[Blues Guitarist]

Looks like the line is on Dunk's elbow rather than the edge of his shoulder as i is for the Everton player. The below looks more equal.
View attachment 169256

If that’s the best image VAR gets to work with we are f*cked

 

[Bodian]

Looks like the line is on Dunk's elbow rather than the edge of his shoulder as i is for the Everton player. The below looks more equal.
View attachment 169256

And this is the thing isn't it. We could all draw lines for hours!

The other question is 'where is the ground' in relation to the lines.

If you assume that both players have one foot on the ground - then draw a line from Dunk's foot to the bottom of the red dashes (which looks to be what they have done) - then apply the same angle for their guy - the blue dashes actually meet this line on the red.

We could go on for ever!!

 

[pb21]

I think the answer is that if he looks level, then he's level. I very much doubt that the technology is sufficiently robust to do it by itself, and as the cross hair lines are presently manually drawn on by the VAR officials then there is certainly room to argue that Dunk was level. Until we have automatic Hawkeye levels of tech (and we should remember Hawkeye in many sports is dealing with static lines rather than dynamic lines thus adding to the complexity) then we aren't in mm measurement territory.

Another question is, even if Dunk was technically offside going by the laws as they currently stand, should the laws be changed such that he technically wouldn't be?

I think they should.

 

[Hamilton]

Looks like the line is on Dunk's elbow rather than the edge of his shoulder as i is for the Everton player. The below looks more equal.
View attachment 169256

So the law states that Dunk is offside if any part of the head, body or feet is in the opponents half. If we take Tarkowski's foot as the point after which Dunk would be deemed to be offside and then raise the line vertically (green), which is what I've done in this image, then Dunk's shoulder would not appear to be in an offside position.