[Albion] Offside?

[sussex_guy2k2]

It's not needed, nothing was wrong with the game before,Mistakes happened - annoying, certainly, but not this amount and the game has been changed for VAR.

Of course there was. Massive games in every league were being wrongly decided, and leagues and relegations were being decided on those decisions.

The problem isn’t the technology. That works perfectly well.

The issue is that you still have the same incompetent people who were making the wrong decisions beforehand making those decisions now. You just have more of them each game, plus they’re trying to use technology, plus they’ve been changing the rules every two minutes because they’ve realised many of them aren’t logical once you have to analyse them with a camera on you. Plus they’re not micing these people up so there’s no responsibility for their actions.

And all of this has made the referees even bigger stars than they were before VAR.

But it shouldn’t have to be this way. Any half decent, non-corrupt, competent team would’ve had this working fine a couple of years back.

 

[sussex_guy2k2]

This!
It's well established that the technology is not precise enough to make these calls.
The technology in cricket has a much higher chance of being consistently correct and yet a margin for error is factored in.
Goals that looked acceptable to everyone, and technology does not provide definitive proof , should always stand.

The technology is accurate enough, they’re just not using it right. Yesterday, and many other examples, would’ve been so clearly onside if they’d just drawn from the feet. Have the lines a bit thicker than they are (although that wasn’t necessary yesterday to see that should’ve been onside) and if they touch at any point, they’re onside.

The issue they have with the lines is that often attackers are facing one way and defenders are facing another, often with their body tilted. If you draw the lines from the upper body you’re automatically penalizing the attacking team before you’ve even started, meaning attackers have to start their runs from further back to be onside. This is absolutely nonsensical, but just proves we have idiots making the rules and implementing them.

 

[Uh_huh_him]

Yes, but VAR , we were informed, was to be brought in for clear and obvious errors and that is far from what it is actually being used for now.

Every commentary I have heard of our goal said that Dunk looked onside, from the angle which was used.

The technology is not yet available to make the types of judgements it is making for offside.
Adding arbitrary lines to a still image, is not adequate.
The governing bodies need to either improve the technology, or amend the guidance on administering the law.

 

[Uh_huh_him]

The technology is accurate enough, they’re just not using it right. Yesterday, and many other examples, would’ve been so clearly onside if they’d just drawn from the feet. Have the lines a bit thicker than they are (although that wasn’t necessary yesterday to see that should’ve been onside) and if they touch at any point, they’re onside.

The issue they have with the lines is that often attackers are facing one way and defenders are facing another, often with their body tilted. If you draw the lines from the upper body you’re automatically penalizing the attacking team before you’ve even started, meaning attackers have to start their runs from further back to be onside. This is absolutely nonsensical, but just proves we have idiots making the rules and implementing them.

But that requires a change to the way the law is administered. (because the technology is not precise enough).

The position of the feet is not the relevant factor.

 

[One Teddy Maybank]

Of course there was. Massive games in every league were being wrongly decided, and leagues and relegations were being decided on those decisions.

The problem isn’t the technology. That works perfectly well.

The issue is that you still have the same incompetent people who were making the wrong decisions beforehand making those decisions now. You just have more of them each game, plus they’re trying to use technology, plus they’ve been changing the rules every two minutes because they’ve realised many of them aren’t logical once you have to analyse them with a camera on you. Plus they’re not micing these people up so there’s no responsibility for their actions.

And all of this has made the referees even bigger stars than they were before VAR.

But it shouldn’t have to be this way. Any half decent, non-corrupt, competent team would’ve had this working fine a couple of years back.

All the above is true, but for me football is a continuous game of spontaneous emotion/joy, VAR is removing this because it creates delay.
It is sucking the enjoyment out, and I’d rather have the previous ‘errors’ with no delay.

 

[sussex_guy2k2]

All the above is true, but for me football is a continuous game of spontaneous emotion/joy, VAR is removing this because it creates delay.
It is sucking the enjoyment out, and I’d rather have the previous ‘errors’ with no delay.

I get that. And my enjoyment for football is being sucked away almost by the game.

I’d rather get the right result and have a 2 minute delay. I guess everyone’s different.

As I say though, the current process doesn’t work and, even though I’m an advocate of using the tech, I fully appreciate the negative impact it’s current use is having on the game.

 

[sussex_guy2k2]

But that requires a change to the way the law is administered. (because the technology is not precise enough).

The position of the feet is not the relevant factor.

So, what’s your solution?

I disagree obviously, but more than happy to listen to other ideas.

 

[One Teddy Maybank]

I get that. And my enjoyment for football is being sucked away almost by the game.

I’d rather get the right result and have a 2 minute delay. I guess everyone’s different.

As I say though, the current process doesn’t work and, even though I’m an advocate of using the tech, I fully appreciate the negative impact it’s current use is having on the

For sure. I realise the it’s the application, but struggling to see what’s being achieved. Same controversies, but greater frustration.

Goal line technology is great, so surely touch line technology can be applied.

 

[Herr Tubthumper]

HawkEye run the system. Nobody said they’re tracking 22 people. From all the cameras available, they usually have a clear view which will allow the vertical line to be generated from the correct point on the body. From this the lines that show whether the player is onside or offside are generated, automatically taking into account the topography of that ground and - crucially - adapting the line to allow for the camera angle. Whether or not you can mark the exact frame is a moot point. The lines are NOT added on in the way they would have been on a traditional TV graphic. Don’t see the relevance of the incident you’re talking about. The issue was nothing at all to do with the technology - just the VAR forgetting what the on-field decision had been.

I’m no fan of VAR any more but it really is amazing that people are still saying things like ‘the lines are bent’ and ‘how can they possibly tell from that angle?’ You’re looking at a 2D image but it’s merely an illustration, constructed using information from several angles. If this article is up to date then it clarifies they no longer show the whole process - just a still image which illustrates the final decision. For obvious reasons, that will ideally be the one that shows the players in relation to the kicker, defenders and the goal - but it’s not necessarily the angle they initially used to mark the points on the body.
https://www.premierleague.com/news/1488423

The system/process isn’t workable for such tight decisions.

That link states the images are 50 frames a second. Given the speed with which balls can be kicked (Ronaldo clocked at 35 metres per second apparently) there is quite a margin for error when the moment the ball is kicked. 70cm between frames in Ronaldo’s case. This margin isn’t then applied to the red and blue lines. My point being is you can’t be sure for such tight decisions. If you can’t be sure, you can’t disallow it.

 

[Deadly Danson]

The system/process isn’t workable for such tight decisions.

That link states the images are 50 frames a second. Given the speed with which balls can be kicked (Ronaldo clocked at 35 metres per second apparently) there is quite a margin for error when the moment the ball is kicked. 70cm between frames in Ronaldo’s case. This margin isn’t then applied to the red and blue lines. My point being is you can’t be sure for such tight decisions. If you can’t be sure, you can’t disallow it.

Exactly. I find it incredible that week after week Dermot Gallagher says VAR offside is factual. It's not and never has been and thus if you are ruling someone offside by 1cm then it's a guess. Either make the lines much much wider and if the decision falls in this margin for error then you go with the onfield decision or use the automated version (which I still have my doubts about but is probably better).

 

[Kinky Gerbil]

Yes, but VAR , we were informed, was to be brought in for clear and obvious errors and that is far from what it is actually being used for now.

It was never ever going to be just for that

 

[Iggle Piggle]

The rules and application of it seem to change every week.

Newcastle were given a goal because they couldn't be sure the ball was out of play when everyone could see it was or that Stevie Wonder could spot 2 hands in the back of Gabriel or an obvious offside.

Yesterday Dunk is deemed offside and there is no way on earth they can be sure.

At wolves away everyone was being carded for throwing the ball away. Yesterday Doucoure hacks Adingra down throws the ball away and nothing.

It's not VAR that's the issue. It's making up the rules as they go along every week. It's a guess up from game to game.

 

[Thunder Bolt]

The technology is accurate enough, they’re just not using it right. Yesterday, and many other examples, would’ve been so clearly onside if they’d just drawn from the feet. Have the lines a bit thicker than they are (although that wasn’t necessary yesterday to see that should’ve been onside) and if they touch at any point, they’re onside.

The issue they have with the lines is that often attackers are facing one way and defenders are facing another, often with their body tilted. If you draw the lines from the upper body you’re automatically penalizing the attacking team before you’ve even started, meaning attackers have to start their runs from further back to be onside. This is absolutely nonsensical, but just proves we have idiots making the rules and implementing them.

One of the most clear criticisms of VAR I have read. Can Paul Barber ask you to come in and be present when Howard Webb hand delivers his next written apology?
Even better, can Webb resign and let you take over? I’m not being sarcastic.

 

[jessiejames]

Let's just nip some of these comments in the bud.

1) it doesn't need to be a clear and obvious error for an offside. All goals are assessed for offside, clear and obvious only applies to fouls/serious foul play.

2) the line is drawn to the shoulder which is above the elbow.

That being said: f*** this anti-football decision.

Thank you for clearing up my question on anither thread with number 1, clear and obvious. What i dont get why does it take so long to make a decision for C&O.

 

[Deadly Danson]

The rules and application of it seem to change every week.

Newcastle were given a goal because they couldn't be sure the ball was out of play when everyone could see it was or that Stevie Wonder could spot 2 hands in the back of Gabriel or an obvious offside.

Yesterday Dunk is deemed offside and there is no way on earth they can be sure.

At wolves away everyone was being carded for throwing the ball away. Yesterday Doucoure hacks Adingra down throws the ball away and nothing.

It's not VAR that's the issue. It's making up the rules as they go along every week. It's a guess up from game to game.

100% agree. It's a different game every week. One week you are deemed offside interfering with play if you are in the same postcode as the incident, the next you can stand in front of the keeper and you're not, one week you can have the ball fired off your knee onto your hand and it's a penalty and the next you can punch the ball and its not. Kicking the ball away, blocking a free kick, surrounding the ref - yellows one week and not the next. One week a slight push is deemed worthy to rule out a goal, the next a full on assault is deemed part of the game. Last week a forearm smash was not deemed a red card yet we have seen hundreds of lesser incidents penalised by VAR. I have huge sympathy with on field refs where decisions have to be made on one look where players are constantly looking to cheat and you can only view things from one angle but if you are going to have VAR then it has, HAS to be more consistent. I was driving for 10 hours yesterday to effectively have someone rule out an amazing goal that would have rewarded that commitment by a total guess using some of the dodgiest technology there is. Had the lino simply flagged for offside at the time and there was no offside then we would have had a little whinge and moved on.

 

[Uh_huh_him]

100% agree. It's a different game every week. One week you are deemed offside interfering with play if you are in the same postcode as the incident, the next you can stand in front of the keeper and you're not, one week you can have the ball fired off your knee onto your hand and it's a penalty and the next you can punch the ball and its not. Kicking the ball away, blocking a free kick, surrounding the ref - yellows one week and not the next. One week a slight push is deemed worthy to rule out a goal, the next a full on assault is deemed part of the game. Last week a forearm smash was not deemed a red card yet we have seen hundreds of lesser incidents penalised by VAR. I have huge sympathy with on field refs where decisions have to be made on one look where players are constantly looking to cheat and you can only view things from one angle but if you are going to have VAR then it has, HAS to be more consistent. I was driving for 10 hours yesterday to effectively have someone rule out an amazing goal that would have rewarded that commitment by a total guess using some of the dodgiest technology there is. Had the lino simply flagged for offside at the time and there was no offside then we would have had a little whinge and moved on.

Well we were also able to have inconsistencies in the same game vs Spurs last year.

One goal ruled out by going with the onfield decision, where the lino couldn't possibly have been sure of the handball.
One goal ruled out by overruling the onfield decision, where VAR couldn't have possibly been sure of the handball.

 

[Deadly Danson]

Well we were also able to have inconsistencies in the same game vs Spurs last year.

One goal ruled out by going with the onfield decision, where the lino couldn't possibly have been sure of the handball.
One goal ruled out by overruling the onfield decision, where VAR couldn't have possibly been sure of the handball.

Oh God, don't bring up those memories again. The single most bafflingly officiated match I've ever seen.

 

[Driver8]

Because no matter how good they are, the officials can’t see everything going on. The problem is that they’re using it to check things they generally get right but look for ways to disallow perfectly good goals.

I can live with the mistakes of the past if VAR is the alternative.

 

[Uh_huh_him]

Oh God, don't bring up those memories again. The single most bafflingly officiated match I've ever seen.

And then we got 1 apology for the least egregious of the 5 incorrect decisions.

 

[Austrian Gull]

The Premier League seems to have had the most problems implementing VAR - is it poor training? A lack of competent leadership? Nowhere near as many weekly controversies in other major leagues.

There is absolutely no way Dunk's goal could be regarded as offside. We watched the game live here yesterday and the best you can say about the replay was it was inconclusive.