[Football] VAR: Thicker lines

[Titanic]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/57435400

VAR: Premier League to use thicker lines when assessing offside calls next season

A good move I think - gives a margin for error on the tight calls (armpits / toenails / which freeze frame is used etc...).

If it is given as offside with the thicker lines, it really should be clearly offside; if not given, then there is a benefit of the doubt to the attacker - which sounds good to me..

 

[The Rattler]

Thicker rule-makers


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Blue Valkyrie]

Clearer and obviouser errors.

 

[Brok]

Which part of the thicker lines will they use, the first 0.1mm or the last 0.1mm?

 

[Stumpy Tim]

While this is an improvement, you will still get the delay while deciding if a toe is over the new thicker line. It doesn't make much difference to the time it takes.

For me, abandon the line. If the on-field off-side decision is obviously wrong on the TV by the human eye, then change it. Otherwise, the on-field decision stands

 

[KZNSeagull]

Will the VAR refs be thicker too?

 

[southstandandy]

Offside with VAR should just be a line drawn on the pitch (via TV tech) and should ONLY (in my view) judge offside by the position of a players foot.

All this crap about an arm being offside is just stupid and hard to get right even with technology. Just make it offside at the forwards most position of a players foot. Far easier to judge.

 

[Titanic]

Offside with VAR should just be a line drawn on the pitch (via TV tech) and should ONLY (in my view) judge offside by the position of a players foot.

All this crap about an arm being offside is just stupid and hard to get right even with technology. Just make it offside at the forwards most position of a players foot. Far easier to judge.

I think that would require a law change, so would be much slower to implement... but I agree with you, and it will quite likely be the next change they make.

 

[mejonaNO12 aka riskit]

If it needs a line then it wasn't offside enough to worry about it

 

[Smirko]

Blurred Lines, you know you want it..

 

[Super Steve Earle]

Blurred Lines, you know you want it..

Ha, ha. Thicke lines

 

[nwgull]

Have they finally recognised that a slow mo with 50 frames per give a margin of error up to 20cm? I can’t believe this wasn’t previously thought through, especially when cricket has provided a successful precedent for on-field decisions overruling marginal off-field calls.

 

[beorhthelm]

i cant see how a thinker line helps. in the example of the Bamford goal, its placement of the line thats the problem, halfway between shoulder and elbow on Bamford, on the armpit of the defender. Bamfords entire body (sans arm) is behind the defender. so the basic application of the rule is wrong.

For me, abandon the line. If the on-field off-side decision is obviously wrong on the TV by the human eye, then change it. Otherwise, the on-field decision stands

is the right answer, suppose to pick up obvious errors after all.

 

[Acker79]

I fail to see how this helps.

If they are looking at the difference between, say, the last feet of two players. One foot is 1 pixel further forward. They put a 1cm thick line against each foot they then look at the pixels 1cm from the feet. If you use 5cm thick lines, one foot is still one pixel further forward, so one line will still be one pixel further forward. the only difference is that the pixels are 5cm from the feet instead of 1cm.

 

[Superseagull]

If it needs a line then it wasn't offside enough to worry about it

This is how I think it should be done. No drawing lines in some distant tv studio. If it's not clearly wrong the on field decision stands. If it's clearly offside then ref or lino can be called over to screen to double check (max 10 seconds). Final decision should be made by the on field ref not someone sat in a studio hundreds of miles away after 2 minutes of detailed analysis from 10 different angles.

 

[Titanic]

I fail to see how this helps.

If they are looking at the difference between, say, the last feet of two players. One foot is 1 pixel further forward. They put a 1cm thick line against each foot they then look at the pixels 1cm from the feet. If you use 5cm thick lines, one foot is still one pixel further forward, so one line will still be one pixel further forward. the only difference is that the pixels are 5cm from the feet instead of 1cm.

If the thicker lines overlap (which they would in your case) it would not be called offside, i.e. the benefit of the doubt is given to the attacker.

 

[Swansman]

**** VAR. I dont care what they do with it, its still shit. And take goal-line tech with you.

For more than a hundred years the rules were the same regardless if you were some amateur playing in the 9th tier or a professional player. Thats one of the keys to why it was the sport of the people. With VAR and goal-line tech its no longer the case, this kind of technological augmentation increasingly turns into two different sports. We're only one or two years from AI:s deciding what is or isnt offside.

 

[Lethargic]

Wont make any difference they will still relate it to the line edge closest to the player so it will be the edge that is key therefore doesn't matter if the line is thicker. Next debate will be is the line offside or not just give me the game of football back.

 

[Napier]

Which part of the thicker lines will they use, the first 0.1mm or the last 0.1mm?

Depends who is playing and big 6 status.......

 

[zefarelly]

Will the VAR refs be thicker too?

I'm not sure that's possible.