Interesting slant on that ‘handball’

All advertisments are hidden for logged in members, why not log in/register?

Magic hat FC said:
Also with the VAR offside lines they are judging where to put the set point usually from behind and at an angle, so the perspective could be well out. They should have at least a forward facing camera behind the goal, that is synced up with the touchline cameras, so that they can at least get all 3 axis right for the line they are trying to draw, anything else is best guess.
Click to expand...

They use 3D maps of each clubs pitch to calibrate the lines, but this is done by Hawkeye so anything is possible 😉

https://www.premierleague.com/news/1488423
 

HoodedClaw said:
They use 3D maps of each clubs pitch to calibrate the lines, but this is done by Hawkeye so anything is possible 😉

https://www.premierleague.com/news/1488423
Click to expand...
I understand that, but the vertical lines they draw for the armpit or toe or whatever looks to be furthest forward, are done from an angle and behind. To get the proper 3d view surely a different camera behind the goal to set the vertical, for all we know the line they draw for armpits could be 6 inch either way of where they should actually be set because of the current perspective.
 
HighfieldBlade said:
Totally agree that the VAR technology just isn't up to the job. As I said on another thread, VAR uses a frame rate of 50 FPS which is pitifully slow. It's like trying to measure the speed of light using a torch and a stopwatch.

This graphic explains it well.
View attachment 84694
Click to expand...

Nothing more needs to be added to the argument, until the technology is fit for purpose VAR can't be relied on for close decisions.

As the whole point of the sport is scoring goals, if they can't categorically say someone is offside then goals should stand.
 
Champagneblade said:
I'd only disagree with the point about some of the more marginal calls. In the Lundstram one, I'm unconvinced the tech is good enough to make such a close call. The frame they used, the ball had already left the foot of the passer. Lundstram's foot was in motion and as such is shown as blurred. The absolute accuracy to the inch of the pitch measurement is also unlikely to be accurate to that degree making any line drawing have a degree of error to boot. I'd say the tech is ok when full appendages are offside but for fractions of body parts, it simply isn't accurate enough.
Click to expand...

Yeah but wouldn't they need x-ray cameras to check? 😂 😂 😂
 
Magic hat FC said:
I understand that, but the vertical lines they draw for the armpit or toe or whatever looks to be furthest forward, are done from an angle and behind. To get the proper 3d view surely a different camera behind the goal to set the vertical, for all we know the line they draw for armpits could be 6 inch either way of where they should actually be set because of the current perspective.
Click to expand...

The crosshair lines will be calibrated the the pitch lines, I take the argument your putting forward as more a resolution / speed issue of the technology used. How can you see where the armpit is if it's blurred, this is exacerbated if the player is moving. Highfieldblades post #56 perfectly illustrates this.
 
HoodedClaw said:
The crosshair lines will be calibrated the the pitch lines, I take the argument your putting forward as more a resolution / speed issue of the technology used. How can you see where the armpit is if it's blurred, this is exacerbated if the player is moving. Highfieldblades post #56 perfectly illustrates this.
Click to expand...
Its not the resolution that I'm getting at, but basically its a giant 3d graph, and when you plot a graph you find both reference points x&y then go in from the plane they are on. Whereas with the system football uses the go in from the one axis and hope its at the point perpendicular to the other axis, but from the perspective they use, behind and at an angle, is basically best guess. They should be plotting the lines from both directions whilever they are using such shit technology to film it.
 
Magic hat FC said:
Its not the resolution that I'm getting at, but basically its a giant 3d graph, and when you plot a graph you find both reference points x&y then go in from the plane they are on. Whereas with the system football uses the go in from the one axis and hope its at the point perpendicular to the other axis, but from the perspective they use, behind and at an angle, is basically best guess. They should be plotting the lines from both directions whilever they are using such shit technology to film it.
Click to expand...

Assuming the pitch map is accurate and you know the postions of the cameras then you have fixed points that you can draw accurate lines using. It doesn't matter if the camera is in front behind or on top. It's a 3D map not a graph, given the dimensions and relative camera angles are mapped you can draw accurate lines on the map..
 
CentralQuay said:
Lunny being a toe offside is not comparable to the decision at Villa.
One was the correct decision, one was not.

The Villa Park incident is the only one which Sheffield United can truly feel hard done by......
Every other type of decision/overturning of decisions has also impacted other clubs in the league this season.
Click to expand...

Not true when there's a 20cm error in the system and at the far side of the pitch the pixels are even worse.

He could have been onside. The technology isn't good enough to say either way yet.

Also, I've seen something where the line was changed from showing him onside to offside.

Very fishy.
 
HoodedClaw said:
Assuming the pitch map is accurate and you know the postions of the cameras then you have fixed points that you can draw accurate lines using. It doesn't matter if the camera is in front behind or on top. It's a 3D map not a graph, given the dimensions and relative camera angles are mapped you can draw accurate lines on the map..
Click to expand...
But the lines aren't drawn with a 3d camera, they're done using a 2d flat plane camera. I'm not saying the lines on the floor aren't accurate, but vertical lines to knees or arm pits could be out. With the extra camera behind the goal they could properly plot where his knee/armpit is from the touch line and fix that point, then they can play about with the other angle from the goal line. You cant get a proper perspective from one obscure angle no matter how good the mapping is.
 
Magic hat FC said:
But the lines aren't drawn with a 3d camera, they're done using a 2d flat plane camera. I'm not saying the lines on the floor aren't accurate, but vertical lines to knees or arm pits could be out. With the extra camera behind the goal they could properly plot where his knee/armpit is from the touch line and fix that point, then they can play about with the other angle from the goal line. You cant get a proper perspective from one obscure angle no matter how good the mapping is.
Click to expand...

Don't need 3D cameras, computers do the calculations based on the fixed data points. This is then overlayed onto the camera images.

If it was really a bodgit system do you honestly think it would be accepted anywhere, not just worldwide?

The lines are accurate, but as I mentioned the accuracy of where somesones knee, foot or armpit etc is is a different issue that pitch mapping and lines can't fix.
 
HighfieldBlade said:
Totally agree that the VAR technology just isn't up to the job. As I said on another thread, VAR uses a frame rate of 50 FPS which is pitifully slow. It's like trying to measure the speed of light using a torch and a stopwatch.

This graphic explains it well.
View attachment 84694
Click to expand...
Completely agree. Why on earth aren’t high res, high speed cameras used?? 50fps alone was the reason Lundstram’s blurry big toe was given offside, unless he actually does have size 24 feet...
 
HoodedClaw said:
Nothing more needs to be added to the argument, until the technology is fit for purpose VAR can't be relied on for close decisions.

As the whole point of the sport is scoring goals, if they can't categorically say someone is offside then goals should stand.
Click to expand...
I think originally, we all thought it would be primarily used to review penalty shouts, handballs etc. However, the tech is being asked to draw dubious lines over blurry pictures, whereby the line between on or offside is a couple of frames. No way is the tech up to that from what we’ve seen.
 
A Storm of Blades said:
I think originally, we all thought it would be primarily used to review penalty shouts, handballs etc. However, the tech is being asked to draw dubious lines over blurry pictures, whereby the line between on or offside is a couple of frames. No way is the tech up to that from what we’ve seen.
Click to expand...

Totally agree, I'm not even sure that the Tech can ever get there. What kind of resolution would be required to be able to zoom in close enough to see the exact frame when the ball left the players foot for example?

Here's an interesting solution the the VAR offside issues:



Personally I think I could go for something along those sorts of lines.
 

HammerInPeace said:
I still think that VAR could & should have intervened on your Villa 'goal'.
They must be sitting there watching the whole game. They knew that something had or hadn't happened, at that moment.
I get that 'hawkeye-wise', it was an unprecedented occurrence but it was still a disgrace that VAR 'chose' to not get involved.
Click to expand...
This is how to act on another clubs website ,loads of time for this guy and the Spurs fan who comes on . Cant you take that arrogant boring know all CentralQuay off to your West Ham site ,hes doing my head in.
 
HoodedClaw said:
Totally agree, I'm not even sure that the Tech can ever get there. What kind of resolution would be required to be able to zoom in close enough to see the exact frame when the ball left the players foot for example?

Here's an interesting solution the the VAR offside issues:



Personally I think I could go for something along those sorts of lines.
Click to expand...


It's OK them telling us the cameras are fixed, calibrated and checked before every game, I don't doubt they are, but who checks if the groundsman gets his lines correct every time he paints the lines. Who checks if the pitch is 100% square, after all, if we are talking about a player being offside by 2mm when the playing area could be 5 or 50mm out of square.
 
HoodedClaw said:
Totally agree, I'm not even sure that the Tech can ever get there. What kind of resolution would be required to be able to zoom in close enough to see the exact frame when the ball left the players foot for example?

Here's an interesting solution the the VAR offside issues:



Personally I think I could go for something along those sorts of lines.
Click to expand...

Enjoyed the read. I thought myself in simple terms at the time, the solution is just to draw thicker lines, to create a margin for error.
 
Robby Blade said:
It's OK them telling us the cameras are fixed, calibrated and checked before every game, I don't doubt they are, but who checks if the groundsman gets his lines correct every time he paints the lines. Who checks if the pitch is 100% square, after all, if we are talking about a player being offside by 2mm when the playing area could be 5 or 50mm out of square.
Click to expand...
Maybe we should have lines across the pitch every 10 yds like in American Football?
 
Robby Blade said:
It's OK them telling us the cameras are fixed, calibrated and checked before every game, I don't doubt they are, but who checks if the groundsman gets his lines correct every time he paints the lines. Who checks if the pitch is 100% square, after all, if we are talking about a player being offside by 2mm when the playing area could be 5 or 50mm out of square.
Click to expand...

What has the groundsman painting lines got to do with anything?

The pitch isn't square, but it's within the permissable dimensions as stated by the laws, and they aren't the same size. Ours is 102m x 66m Old Trafford is 105 x 68
 
Champagneblade said:
Enjoyed the read. I thought myself in simple terms at the time, the solution is just to draw thicker lines, to create a margin for error.
Click to expand...

I like the % probability of being offside graphic. That with the margin for error graphic shown on the big screen, I'd be hapy with that.
 
HoodedClaw said:
What has the groundsman painting lines got to do with anything?

The pitch isn't square, but it's within the permissable dimensions as stated by the laws, and they aren't the same size. Ours is 102m x 66m Old Trafford is 105 x 68
Click to expand...

I said out of square, not square. If it is not square you can be offside by 5mm one side of the pitch and 5mm on side on the other.
 
Robby Blade said:
I said out of square, not square.
Click to expand...

Not sure what you meant by this then?

Robby Blade said:
It's OK them telling us the cameras are fixed, calibrated and checked before every game, I don't doubt they are, but who checks if the groundsman gets his lines correct every time he paints the lines. Who checks if the pitch is 100% square, after all, if we are talking about a player being offside by 2mm when the playing area could be 5 or 50mm out of square.
Click to expand...
 
Robby Blade said:
If you don't understand the meaning of something being square or out of square I suggest you use Google. I'm sure it will make it understandable, even for you.
Click to expand...

Thanks, just googled it and Google says it's got fuck all to do with how VAR calculates offsides.

Well, who'd have though that.
 
The rule is a load of **** but it's the rule, easy for Oliver really, not his fault, he just applied law.

I guess the only positive is it takes the subjectiveness out of handball, it either did or it didn't.
 
HoodedClaw said:
Thanks, just googled it and Google says it's got fuck all to do with how VAR calculates offsides.

Well, who'd have though that.
Click to expand...

We are told that the cameras are at fixed points. It's OK var showing lines coming off at 90° and hitting the far line at 90°,but what if the pitch is not a perfect rectangle, e.g not square. Unless the pitch is checked to be 100% perfectly square every time var is used then the fixed point cameras cannot be trusted to be giving 2mm offside decisions.
 
Robby Blade said:
We are told that the cameras are at fixed points. It's OK var showing lines coming off at 90° and hitting the far line at 90°,but what if the pitch is not a perfect rectangle, e.g not square. Unless the pitch is checked to be 100% perfectly square every time var is used then the fixed point cameras cannot be trusted to be giving 2mm offside decisions.
Click to expand...

The pitch is digitally mapped pre season to compensate for the camber and to provide a digital representation, the pitch dimensions used are the ones that are registered with the PL. As far as I'm aware you cant change the dimensions during the season, so on that basis they are fixed. Doesn't matter if the painted lines aren't perfectly rectangle, the dimensions used for the VAR calculation are.

All of this though is moot, the cameras aren't of a quality to give an offside decision to the level they are currenty trying too, whether thats 2mm or up to 1m depending on the speed of the ball and receiving player according to some articles. This is before lines get involved.

I agree with you totally in VAR being used for tight(ish) offsides not being fit for purpose, however the way the lines are calulated is correct and accurate.
 

You must log in or register to reply here.

All advertisments are hidden for logged in members, why not log in/register?

All advertisments are hidden for logged in members, why not log in/register?

Back
Top Bottom