[Football] This is utterly ridiculous

[blue-shifted]

Another thing i've been thinking about officiating-wise is that we need to empower / train / improve the linesmen a bit more. So in the rugby world cup, the touch judges were actual refs. They had the ability and confidence to actually help the refs, point out the things they missed, correct them if they got something wrong. Again they are miked up, so you get a sense of the discussions they are having and you respect their skills.

Look at the linesmen in the Premier League, or at any level. Snivelling pathetic underlings. Terrified to decide on which way a throw in has gone until the ref has given them a signal.

We probably won't need VAR if we miked up every official and give lino's and 4th officials the same training and experience as refs get so they can all interchange. Then judge them on their ability to work together in a spirit of genuine cooperation to get the right decision and willingness to admit errors. Any rugby fan will have heard Nigel Owens or someone say something like "sorry I whistled for that lads I got it wrong, set the scrum" and been insanely jealous that we don't have that in football.

 

[nickjhs]

Sorry OP quotes head, feet and body, no mention of arms as you can't score with those...

Yep this should have been overruled. They take the line to the frigging armpit

 

[studio150]

Why not just ditch the offside rule?

Or go back to the Watney Cup trial, where there was no offside outside of the penalty area.

 

[mejonaNO12 aka riskit]

If you need to draw lines, the guy isn't clearly offside. Give the goal. Not difficult.

In rugby (yes I know, blah rugby blah) forward passes are checked if there is a suspicion. If the ref looks at it and can't be 100% sure in a quickish look then it's deemed no great advantage was gained and the play is allowed. It's so so simple.

Yes, the player may be technically offside by his nose, but I don't think anyone cares.

 

[Triggaaar]

This one was flagged as offside by the lino, are you saying that VAR should have overturned the decision and awarded the goal?

 

[Triggaaar]

I thought linesmen were not meant to give offside for really marginal decisions like this? I mean he is technically right although Firmino has not gained any advantage here as you can’t score with your arm.

They're not meant to flag until after the goal is scored/the chance is gone. So he's still right to flag. He got it right, VAR backed him up. Burn them all!

 

[mejonaNO12 aka riskit]

They're not meant to flag until after the goal is scored/the chance is gone. So he's still right to flag. He got it right, VAR backed him up. Burn them all!

Not conclusively at all. That's the point.

They initially decided he was onside at VAR HQ.....then moved the lines and decided he was off by a hair. If it's needing that much effort to try and prove he is offside then just give the goal. No clear advantage is gained.

In no way is that conclusive proof that he was offside, and therefore the goal should be allowed. Does anyone REALLY want VAR used to rule out goals for being offside by 2cms?....especially when the technology isn't there to even make it a certainty.

Let's think of the attacker as the accused. Innocent (goal) until proven (which that evidence does not conclusively do).

 

[Johnny RoastBeef]

Not sure if it will help, but last week the daily mail reported that Hawk eye have an improved limb tracking system to aid offside calls.

The Premier League are planning to bring in an enhanced VAR system which makes use of ‘limb-tracking technology’ to dramatically increase the accuracy and speed with which referees make offside decisions.

Sportsmail has learned that Hawk-Eye, who developed goal-line technology as well as the review systems in cricket and tennis, are working on a sophisticated system using multiple cameras to give video assistants access to an ‘automated offside line’ in real time.

The technology will track the back foot of every outfield player in each VAR game, providing a constant offside line for video referees to assess instantly, whenever a decision is deemed too close to be ruled on solely by the on-field officials.

 

[fleet]

If you have the technology you have to be exact, if you start having margins where does that end up. The answer is stay onside.

Umpires call?

 

[Triggaaar]

Not conclusively at all. That's the point.

They initially decided he was onside at VAR HQ.....then moved the lines and decided he was off by a hair. If it's needing that much effort to try and prove he is offside then just give the goal. No clear advantage is gained.

Eh? The linesman flagged for offside. If VAR isn't conclusive, then you go with the on-field decision, you don't overrule it.

In no way is that conclusive proof that he was offside, and therefore the goal should be allowed.

Well that's a new rule you're trying to throw into football. Linesmen have always just flagged when they've thought it was offside, they've never needed conclusive proof.

Does anyone REALLY want VAR used to rule out goals for being offside by 2cms?

Does anyone (apart from you) really want VAR overruling the on-feild officials, when it looks like they were right?

Let's think of the attacker as the accused. Innocent (goal) until proven (which that evidence does not conclusively do).

Er, that's not how football works.

 

[DavidinSouthampton]

If you need to draw lines, the guy isn't clearly offside. Give the goal. Not difficult.

In rugby (yes I know, blah rugby blah) forward passes are checked if there is a suspicion. If the ref looks at it and can't be 100% sure in a quickish look then it's deemed no great advantage was gained and the play is allowed. It's so so simple.

Yes, the player may be technically offside by his nose, but I don't think anyone cares.

I care if it's against us!!!! Not so much if it were to be us being penalised. Blow fairness!

 

[The Wizard]

Tight call, surprised he put his flag up given that linesman are basically obsolete now. My biggest problem with VAR is penalty decisions particularly and other decisions based on opinion, football as always is down to opinion and there is no CLEAR and concise right and wrong as with other sports where technology gives clear decisions(Tennis/Cricket)

It wasn’t ready to be introduced that much is very clear, needs a total overhaul.

 

[Brovion]

The exact opposite could be said of the centre back. I have played that position up to county level and know, even at that level, the skill required to push up on a striker to get them offside. With the way VAR is looking at things that skill is being diminished and centre backs have more doubt in their minds for pushing up as they know their decision will be scrutinised by VAR.

Yes, centrebacks have needed skill and savvy to play the offside law, and as (especially in winter) the balls have got lighter and the pitches more like bowling greens so the skillsets of forwards and defenders have evolved.

That doesn't alter the fact though that the offside law is a fundamental part of football, and scrapping it isn't a minor tweak, it will change the way the game is played - although even I might be in favour of it if it sorts out the VAR fiasco!

 

[mejonaNO12 aka riskit]

Eh? The linesman flagged for offside. If VAR isn't conclusive, then you go with the on-field decision, you don't overrule it.

.

The advantage should lie with the attacker with the emphasis being on only disallowing goals if it is CLEAR they were not correct.

That is the WHOLE POINT of the recommendation that the linesman keeps the flag down and the refs check the goals regardless.

If you can't be CONCLUSIVE that a goal was offside then clearly it wasn't offside enough to care. Allow the goal for goodness sake.

Clearly we are looking at this from different viewpoints and that's fine, but the one question I would ask is, do you honestly think a VAR system which sees the HQ determining (with no proven accuracy at all) that a players armpit is offside how you want VAR to be? I'd be STAGGERED if that's how the authorities wanted it to be.

In answer to your previous question, I would want that overturned as the technology is not good enough, in that situation, to prove CLEARLY he is offside. In such a marginal situation, the advantage should be with the attacker. Again, happy to accept I'm holding a different viewpoint to you on this.

 

[monty uk]

There should also be a factor for video frames. I think they’re using normal TV footage which will probably be 60 frames per second, possibly 120.
I’d imagine most players can run a 11-12sec 100m which is about 9m/sec so on that logic a player could move minimum of 7.5cm in a frame.
How can they be sure the frame they pick is exactly the one the player kicked the ball.

Whilst a video frame is transmitted at 50Hz to suit the UK power supply and TV operation the actual frame image is captured at a far, far, greater speed - otherwise the whole frame would be blurred, just as phone cameras do. There is frame synchronisation between cameras in a process of genlock and time codes that relate to frames - these are most likely used in VAR to align images in time, otherwise there is no way that the VAR officials could work out where players were at the exact point the ball was kicked. Whilst there may be some inaccuracy it is not likely to be anywhere near your calculates 7.5cms. You didn't mention camera angles across the pitch which are probably more problematic and parallax issues which the onscreen lines are meant to resolve but cannot do so very accurately - however that is the best we have.

VAR and camera technology can resolve the exact position of players at an exact moment in time and can therefore indicate whether the player is offside - yes or no, with no doubt. You, and many others, may not like VAR but it proves whether or not an offside rule has been broken and whether a player is offside or not.

The issue is more one of the law itself. Whether a player's armpit hair is ahead of another's toenails constituting an offside position.

Goal and penalty decisions are much more subjective as we saw at the weekend, so another matter entirely.

 

[Nathan]

Th error is with the lino, should have flagged after the goal was scored - VAR would have checked and I am sure would have stayed as a goal. VAR tends to go with the ref or lino, and doesn't often overturn decisions. In this case the lino was wrong.

 

[mejonaNO12 aka riskit]

Th error is with the lino, should have flagged after the goal was scored - VAR would have checked and I am sure would have stayed as a goal. VAR tends to go with the ref or lino, and doesn't often overturn decisions. In this case the lino was wrong.

Indeed. Again, the video showing how VAR HQ initially drew lines which 'showed' Firmino was onside......and then suddenly felt the need to re-calculate and back up the lino's decision would demonstrate this. They were desperate to not overturn the decision so 'proved' it with a new calculation on the lines.

If the lino keeps his flag down then you start from a position of 'this is a goal, now is there any CLEAR reason not to award/give the goal'. An 'offside' like Firmino's should not be enough for the ref to then say "Yep, that's a clear mistake. Goal disallowed".

I know it's rugby AGAIN, but it absolutely should be the equivalent of "is there any reason I can not award the try". If there is something marginal that comes up, they will just stick with the try.

 

[sebtucknott]

Whilst a video frame is transmitted at 50Hz to suit the UK power supply and TV operation the actual frame image is captured at a far, far, greater speed - otherwise the whole frame would be blurred, just as phone cameras do. There is frame synchronisation between cameras in a process of genlock and time codes that relate to frames - these are most likely used in VAR to align images in time, otherwise there is no way that the VAR officials could work out where players were at the exact point the ball was kicked. Whilst there may be some inaccuracy it is not likely to be anywhere near your calculates 7.5cms. You didn't mention camera angles across the pitch which are probably more problematic and parallax issues which the onscreen lines are meant to resolve but cannot do so very accurately - however that is the best we have.

VAR and camera technology can resolve the exact position of players at an exact moment in time and can therefore indicate whether the player is offside - yes or no, with no doubt. You, and many others, may not like VAR but it proves whether or not an offside rule has been broken and whether a player is offside or not.

The issue is more one of the law itself. Whether a player's armpit hair is ahead of another's toenails constituting an offside position.

Goal and penalty decisions are much more subjective as we saw at the weekend, so another matter entirely.

The video will be captured at a "frame rate" the shutter speed will determine whether the image is blurry or not. Traditionally live TV is 24 or 25 frames/per sec, anything faster and it looks jerky to the human eye. Slow motion cameras will be at 60fps possibly super slow-mo at 120fps. From what I've seen they're using the live camera angles which I'd guess are at 24/25fps with maybe one or two slow motion angles.

I agree the timecode will allow them to see multiple angles at the same time but I don't think they can tell the exact position, say in like a photo finish imaging which is one line at 20,000fps.

So it seems silly to try and be accurate to the millimetre when the technology is probably accurate to +/-10cm.

 

[GT49er]

Or go back to the referees assistant, unless a “clear and obvious error” is made... not analyse every goal to see if it can be disallowed!

Yes, but according to Dermot Gallagher a decision like the Liverpool one above is "clear and obvious" because when viewed several times from different angles in slo-mo it is fractionally offside.
This is (one of many places) where VAR is a cock up. 'Clear and obvious', to the rest of the world apart from those charged with implementing VAR, would mean checking decisions where the players, several thousand people in the stands, Sky TV etc., have seen something the ref has clearly missed or got catastrophically wrong - not marginal things like an offside armpit, which should be left to the football equivalent of 'umpire's call' (even if, as in this case, the lino got it wrong).

 

[Arthritic Toe]

If you want VAR this is what you get. Maybe you pro-VAR lot should have thought it through.

There is no way to make it better.

You cant make it for 'clear and obvious' only because then you get into a debate about what is clear and obvious.
Changing it to feet or any other part of the body makes no difference to the argument.
It's completely different to rugby and cricket which have lengthy stoppages already built into the game.

Its a complete dogs breakfast and it was always going to be - there is no way to make it better. If you wanted VAR you've got it. Just shut up and lump it.