[Albion] Offside?

[Kinky Gerbil]

The issue isn’t the apology. People get things wrong. The issue is there’s no consequence other than an official getting dropped a league or two. That makes no difference to the wronged team.

What is the consequence of a player on 100k a week missing an open goal? dropped?

I am not claiming refs are perfect, but they are the only people on the pitch that are expected to be.

 

[nwgull]

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

Flippin ‘eck, I appear to have poked a wasps nest.

Original point was that with 50 frames/s, the ball will probably move 60cm between frames. This is therefore probably the first frame after the ball has been struck. It’s unlikely that you’re going to be able to get a frame showing the exact moment it’s struck and this is precisely why VAR is not accurate for offsides.

 

[Kinky Gerbil]

I didn’t say it was corrupt, but it’s so bad it’s inevitably going to bring up questions of corruption. I just said that any half decent, non-corrupt, competent team would've had it working. You can debate amongst yourselves which of those boxes they aren’t ticking.

As to your first point, it’s impossible to know, isn’t it, unless someone does the work on that data.

As to whether they manage quite well without it, that’s simply not the case. I have a number of fans of Championship sides, and they moan weekly about awful refereeing, and regularly highlight that ‘VAR would’ve sorted that’.

I don’t think it works well. I’ve said that. But it’s the implementation rather than the technology that doesn’t work. Yesterday is a prime example. The ball had clearly left Gross’ foot a second earlier, so it wasn’t the right still. They took the lines from a place that makes no logical sense (see my earlier post). And they didn’t draw the lines straight. These aren’t technological issues - they’re issues relating to the people involved, whether that’s an issue of competence, corruption or decency is, again, up for debate. But the issue is still the people implementing.

And that goes to the crux of the overall point - the issue with VAR is the people implementing it, who seem to have zero common sense or ability. The fact that they’ve changed the rules so many times just further highlights my point.

Anyone that claims corruption is just dim, using yesterdays game, if they were corrupt they would have sent Havertz off, no one would have really argued.

Its impossible to know, but you are claiming it is something that happened pre VAR, if it was happening that often you would be able to give an example.

I go to quite a few AFC Wimbledon games a season, and to a man no one wants VAR, with the caveat these are only the people I sit near/go with.

The refs/PMGOL are not the ones changing the rules, that comes from the ruling body world wide.

 

[Acker79]

 

[Acker79]

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?

While I'm sure @Sid and the Sharknados is being lighthearted, there is a huge element of truth to what they say. A lot may agree with or understand a decision, but they won't be the one driving the conversation. It will be driven by the the football fan who isn't sane (or more accurately, doesn't view football objectively). Whether their vision is clouded by loyalty or an anti-authority attitude. it will be driven by people who aren't happy unless they are questioning VAR and every decision by the the officials, painting themselves as the victim of some conspiracy.

Maybe that will also come not from 'football insanity', but from a desire to get clicks, or views, promote 'controversy' to drive engagement with phone ins, or tuning in to 24hr rolling TV. The outrage industry is as much a part of football as it is all other walks of life.

Look at the Arsenal game - the three checks all have reasonable explanations (as I noted in the other thread we've seen plenty of examples of misleading perspectives for whether the whole of the ball is over the whole of the line, there was no way of seeing when the ball was played for the offside, and plenty of people don't think it's a foul), yet Arteta is "embarrassing, absolute disgrace" and people are agreeing with him. Not because that was a clearly embarrassing decision, but because they have their own issues with VAR and their own list of mistakes they think are embarassing.

Adding further ambiguity to already controversial decisions won't lead to everyone accepting decisions and moving on.

 

[SeagullsoverLondon]

I wonder if we will ask to see the conclusive evidence for that statement

 

[Triggaaar]

It’s probably not drawn from his hand. Likely they drew it from a different camera angle to position the line, then flicked back to that one to show where he was in relation to the goal and defenders. Not sure how often it needs to be explained that they don’t just draw a line from a still picture and guess… it’s calibrated via a combination of cameras. We just get to see one still image.

That would make sense except for the fact that it’s clear from the image we are shown that the vertical line is in front of his shoulder.

 

[Taybha]

I wonder if we ask to see the conclusive evidence for that statement

We did and here it is

 

[Deadly Danson]

It's bollocks. There is no conclusive evidence BECAUSE THERE CAN'T BE! Dunk may or may not be offside but unless they've suddenly got more accurate technology then they are guessing.

 

[um bongo molongo]

It's not really like umpire's call, which doesn't rely on the naked eye at all. Umpire's call is a margin of error that is applied because hawkeye is calculating where the ball would have gone if the batter hadn't been in the way and is unable to predict within microns how much the ball will deviate in that situation.
What VAR offside could do is incorporate a margin of error by, for example, making the lines thicker and saying it's not offside if the lines are touching.

It is similar because the ‘margin’ would be the naked eye. In cricket it’s obviously easier as you are tracking between two points (bowlers hand and the wicket). But in practice most the time you can tell straight away from the replay whether the call was right or not.
Making the lines thicker essentially does the same thing but i prefer my idea because basically it puts the onus back on the lino, and just corrects it when he’s obviously f****d up. That feels to me more like how it should work.

 

[Iggle Piggle]

Anyone that claims corruption is just dim, using yesterdays game, if they were corrupt they would have sent Havertz off, no one would have really argued.

Whilst I agree with your point re Havertz, the idea that a Newcastle ownership regime who are prepared to cut Journos into little pieces wouldn't use their sacks of gold for corrupt purposes isn't exactly tin foil hat territory. We've even seen Premier League refs go off to Qatar in midweek - presumably for a decent wedge and on 1st class flights - which at least subconsciously might encourage that borderline decisions to city back in the Premier league. At best, it's a bad look.

Refereeing scandals and bent games are as old as the.hills. Most major European leagues have had a refereeing scandal in recent years except the supposedly best league in the world. Given the power the guys in the VAR room have it is surely something that some of the owners in the premier League might have thought about. How else did the world cup end up in Russia, Qatar and Saudi?

 

[Guinness Boy]

So much of the argument around VAR is on how to improve it.

The argument needs to be on how to remove it.

It’s a shitty, flawed system supported by mega pedants and the media (and the ex refs they’ve paid to defend it, on the hour, every hour) and it causes more arguments than when it was just the officials.

It’s killing the fan experience in grounds while boosting the income of blagards from Murdoch’s talksport to these nouveau twitter account bellends.

 

[Moshe Gariani]

It would be so much better if linesmen and refs made decisions immediately on pitch and all those decisions stood unless there was a complete "howler" of a mistake that should be corrected by the VAR because it is so obvious when reviewed once in slow motion. Offside should only be if clear gap. Dunk's goal would have been spontaneously celebrated and allowed by VAR. Newcastle's goal would still have been allowed too, just less controversially. Go back to accepting some reasonable rough and smooth in decisions, but with the safety net that the very worst aberrations are corrected.

 

[Bodian]

It would be so much better if linesmen and refs made decisions immediately on pitch and all those decisions stood unless there was a complete "howler" of a mistake that should be corrected by the VAR because it is so obvious when reviewed once in slow motion. Offside should only be if clear gap. Dunk's goal would have been spontaneously celebrated and allowed by VAR. Newcastle's goal would still have been allowed too, just less controversially. Go back to accepting some reasonable rough and smooth in decisions, but with the safety net that the very worst aberrations are corrected.

More controversially surely?

There was a pretty good case that there was a foul on the Arsenal defender. There is no real case that Dunk was offside - except for some made up lines drawn from the wrong point in time.

 

[Bodian]

Interesting stat

We had three offsides given against us yesterday (none for Everton).

That takes the total number of offsides (for both teams) in our last five games to a grand total of 8.

• 3 v Everton
• 1 v Fulham
• 1 v Ajax
• 3 v Man City
• 1 v Liverpool

Murray used to get 8 in one match!

 

[Moshe Gariani]

More controversially surely?

There was a pretty good case that there was a foul on the Arsenal defender. There is no real case that Dunk was offside - except for some made up lines drawn from the wrong point in time.

I wasn't comparing to Dunk decision. I was making point that my proposal would have dealt more satisfactorily with Newcastle's goal than the current mess does. The goal would have stood but without any VAR-related outrage as the threshold for "complete howler that is unarguably clear cut from one slow motion review" was not met. A "pretty good case" would be nowhere near sufficient.

 

[Bodian]

I wasn't comparing to Dunk decision. I was making point that my proposal would have dealt more satisfactorily with Newcastle's goal than the current mess does. The goal would have stood but without any VAR-related outrage as the threshold for "complete howler that is unarguably clear cut from one slow motion review" was not met. A "pretty good case" would be nowhere near sufficient.

Ah - I see. Thanks.

 

[tronnogull]

So much of the argument around VAR is on how to improve it.

The argument needs to be on how to remove it.

It’s a shitty, flawed system supported by mega pedants and the media (and the ex refs they’ve paid to defend it, on the hour, every hour) and it causes more arguments than when it was just the officials.

It’s killing the fan experience in grounds while boosting the income of blagards from Murdoch’s talksport to these nouveau twitter account bellends.

Conversation on the train back to Euston yesterday was that clearly most ( 85% ? ) of fans actually inside the grounds would like VAR to be binned. How can we harness and coordinate the fan voice to effect change ? Some sort of social media campaign would surely go viral. But you'd need to find a way to exclude the tv audience in the USA and other places who are less invested in supporting a team and enjoy the VAR spectacle.

 

[Acker79]

It would be so much better if linesmen and refs made decisions immediately on pitch and all those decisions stood unless there was a complete "howler" of a mistake that should be corrected by the VAR because it is so obvious when reviewed once in slow motion. Offside should only be if clear gap. Dunk's goal would have been spontaneously celebrated and allowed by VAR. Newcastle's goal would still have been allowed too, just less controversially. Go back to accepting some reasonable rough and smooth in decisions, but with the safety net that the very worst aberrations are corrected.

I wasn't comparing to Dunk decision. I was making point that my proposal would have dealt more satisfactorily with Newcastle's goal than the current mess does. The goal would have stood but without any VAR-related outrage as the threshold for "complete howler that is unarguably clear cut from one slow motion review" was not met. A "pretty good case" would be nowhere near sufficient.

The onfield decisions were 'ball didn't go out', 'onside', 'no foul' and goal. Given the first three are all 'play on' decisions, and the goal was awarded as soon as it went in, I'm not sure how much mode immediately thosee decisions could have been made.

What you've described is essentially 'look for a clear and obvious error, but hurry up about it'. 'Howler', just like 'clear and obvious error' is a subjective term that can be interpretted differently by different people (some would say they are essentially the same with 'howler' being a less formal, more emotive term) - how bad a decision needs to be for it to be a howler/clear and obvious will vary depending on who you ask.

Limiting reviews/time taken is fine for getting on with the game, but with the (admittedly mainly arsenal) fans who think the ball went out based on a single still frame, would they really accept the onfield call of the ball being in because the check was less thorough? "They're already stopping the gaame to have a look, why not take a second look, it'll only take a few seconds more..." (An argument not too dissimilar to ones made for bringing in VAR in the first place - commentators noting how quickly they have replays lined up and how that was indicative of how VAR would only ever be the briefest of interruptions).

Would they really accept the foul was not overturned because the VAR only had one look? "I only needed one look and could see it was a clear foul, if letting a goal stand when there's a clear foul in the build up isn't a howler, I don't know what is!"

I don't think it matters how long they take to look at it, because fans will always have access to Sky/BT coverage, youtube/twitter clips, Match of the day replays, etc and will get to see these indicents so many times they will convince themselves and argue that it is clear, even on one viewing, and that line on what is bad enough a decision will move depending on their own biases.

Aresneal's sense of injustice is nothing to do with VAR or how it works. It's simply football fans disagreeing with official decisions because they don't benefit from them. No change to how VAR works would change their response.

 

[One Love]

What is the consequence of a player on 100k a week missing an open goal? dropped?

I am not claiming refs are perfect, but they are the only people on the pitch that are expected to be.

I don't think anyone is expecting the refs on the pitch to be perfect. I'm sure we all know that they have a very difficult job, with the linesman.

However, VAR is really not that difficult, with the benefit of slow motion replays and different camera angles etc etc etc

They should be getting nearly all the decisions right. It should be a rarity when they get it wrong.

The reality is, it is very far from that. For example, yesterday Newcastle v Arsenal, Havertz should be sent off, Guimeres should be sent off and the goal should have been disallowed for a foul on Gabriel.

The people running it are ruining it, through protecting the ref , we know that happens, Mike Dean admitted to it, to bias, conscious or unconscious from what's happened before and mainly from them being really poor at reading the game caused by inexperience of playing it to a reasonable level.

Create an independent body of ex players that formulate the laws of the game . Get them trained in the laws of the game and make sure they are completely independent of the officials on the pitch so there is no old pals act.

I reckon it'll take about 10 years to get to this. Maybe much quicker if Man City, Spurs, Newcastle all suffer a bad one, then the influential clubs get together and pressure it to happen sooner.