beorhthelm
A. Virgo, Football Genius
- Jul 21, 2003
- 36,015
its also worth noting how much they rely on the snickometer for ultra close calls, because the video and frame rate just doesnt give the resolution.
[Albion] Offside?
- Thread starter Bozza
- Start date
Got something to say or just want fewer pesky ads? Join us... 😊
If we continue to use VAR for offside can't it be changed next season to only use the feet of the players , as Dunk's feet appeared to be onside but his body judge offside ! I would also say that if the two lines drawn between attacker and defender appear to touch then the decision should always be given onside - this might encourage more attacking and goals standing.
Saying all that I would prefer to go back to only the three officials decisions stand , no technology used (apart from goal line technology) and Clubs, TV companies and pundits are not allowed to review footage frame by frame and criticize referees - this is what caused the introduction of VAR
Saying all that I would prefer to go back to only the three officials decisions stand , no technology used (apart from goal line technology) and Clubs, TV companies and pundits are not allowed to review footage frame by frame and criticize referees - this is what caused the introduction of VAR
Especially as he scored with his foot.
Uh_huh_him
Well-known member
- Sep 28, 2011
- 12,126
I don't think so, as I assume that would require a change in the laws of the game.
I think PGMOL could make a decision on how they make the decision, i.e. when they overrule the onfield decision.
Effectively implementing a clear and obvious policy on offside.
theboybilly
Well-known member
Can somebody explain the offside decision against Forest just now because they seem to have used a different line to make the call to that in Dunk's case
Blues Guitarist
Well-known member
It doesn’t matter how far the ball has travelled. If they check for offside AFTER the ball has been kicked, it’s wrong.
Re. the cricket comparison, I'd say the best comparison is with the judgment on whether catches have carried cleanly or not. In that regard cricket has exactly the same problem as football - the cameras are simply not up to the job of determining what has happened. And they dumped the "soft signal" element on those decisions because it was felt an umpire who couldn't possibly have seen what happened shouldn't be overriding the 3rd umpire. Although everybody also agrees the 3rd umpire can't see either.
It's never going to be possible to make judgements to the nearest mm in these situations and the rules should acknowledge that. Football at least could easily amend the offside rule to allow for the lack of certainty.
NorthstandRacoon
Well-known member
Another absolutely APPALLING DECISION. Agree with Arteta, it's a disgrace that we are having these issues in the best league in the world.
And there in a nutshell is the biggest mistake they made when they brought in VAR. Apply 'clear and obvious' to offside and they'd be well on the way to making VAR acceptable.
R. Slicker
Well-known member
- Jan 1, 2009
- 4,490
(I'm obviously terrible at quoting posts)
Nonsense.
All that would happen would be fans claiming VAR is worthless, because 'that offside decision that went against us was a clear and obvious error, can't see why it wasn't overruled. That offside decision that was overruled costing us? Well, that was never clear and obvious. We need to bin VAR if they're just going to use it to screw over clubs like Brighton to protect the big six/the home side/the ref'
There will always be people complaining about VAR. Get rid of it, people will be split between complaining about the ref (like they did before VAR) and complaining about the lack of VAR.
Everyone thinks they have the perfect answer to make VAR work, but their answer won't work for everyone. There are too many opinions on how it should be used, when it should be used, who should do what part of the process, etc.
Last edited:
nwgull
Well-known member
If it has then Groß must be about 4m tall.
Seagull58
In the Algarve
Look at the end of the smear that represents the ball. It's current position is at the right hand end of that, maybe half a metre plus from the foot.
Attachments
Last edited:
I'll be blunt about this.
A metre is significantly longer than you think it is.
Seagull58
In the Algarve
OK, it's at least half a metre, the distance from his foot to his knee, and looks close to the distance from his foot to his hip, which is one metre.
Is Gross 2m tall?
No. No he's not. I'm not even going to bother looking that up because it's clearly not true.
I'd take a stab at about 0.6m. But really it doesn't matter, the point is none of this is so precise that we should be chalking off goals for the sake of a few inches.
Seagull58
In the Algarve
Absolutely agree. Gross is about 1.8m so the ball has moved AT LEAST half a metre based on that blurry image. Since they ruled Dunk offside by a gnat's cock as he was racing forward it invalidates the offside call on its own, let alone when you factor in that they seem to have drawn the line incorrectly from his sleeve instead of his armpit.
Edit: fwiw I am 1.74m tall and from my foot to my hip is 1m
I'm out at the moment, but having been measured at 6'2.5" the other day (and I'm a damn sight taller than most people who claim to be 6'3") I''ll check my foot to hip when I'm in later.
What will this prove? Absolutely f*** all.
I agree with @GT49er . Whilst clear and obvious will have an element of subjectivity, the vast majority of people will understand especially when they see the VAR images. Can you imagine any sane person arguing the Dunk image conclusively shows him offside?
