VAR ruled this offside...

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

Roygbiv said:
Apparently Chris Foy has said it was offside. If the referees genuinely think they're getting it right then there is no hope.
Click to expand...

All they are doing is covering their mates arse because next week the wanker at Stockley might be the ref and he'll need the same help out of a hole.
 



Can any clever person provide me with the Radio Sheffield commentary from the goal being scored to the moment the ref disallows it, including the full 3.45 wait?

Inbox me the results if possible. I have a radio show to record tomorrow and I have a Sportsdesk slot on there which I think really needs a VAR remix of a certain surprise hit single for a UK Prog Rock band in 1977.
 
Fuck me , just watching manure utd , Maguire goes up for a header , might have it his arm , manure score a goal , goes to VAR , after 2 mins ,its not clear and obvious , VAR rules in favour in manure and goal stands , NO FUCKING SUPRISE THERE !!!
If that had been us the goal would have been ruled out for hand ball !
 
ZoneManWilf said:
Admittedly I've assumed. But both cricket and tennis use the much more established hawk eye, and those decisions are over a specific smaller areas of the court or wicket. VAR is trying to determine millimetre offsides over 50 or 60 yards of pitch and the tech is clearly not up to the task.

Plus, cricket has a margin of error called umpire's call, probably covering an uncertain area of about 10-15% of the stumps.

So the technology is used on an advisory basis with the umpire on pitch call being used as the core decision with a margin of uncertainty where it stays with the initial decision. It has the effect of removing clearly incorrect decisions, so more are right, but marginal ones are essentially unchanged.

Why VAR can't do the same approach for offsides is beyond me as its just common sense.
Click to expand...

To put it in simple terms.

From what I understand it you cant compare VAR to Hawkeye in Cricket or Tennis because there is the computer showing you the decision so its a lot more accurate. VAR uses a human to determine the decision. Therefore more prone to errors. To err is to be human.

I also thought goal line technology was by Hawkeye (correct me if I`m wrong) and whatever the company that is a decision worked out by a computer. So these comments about 50/60 yards in a pitch, 50fps per second nonsense is we have a third rate system determining decisions over the same distance a computer system can show a football crossing the line my 10mm.

If I remember right Hawkeye were one of the companies going for VAR and they didnt get the contract as they were too expensive ???
 
Do, do forgive me. Posts on this Forum have been lit up with VAR yesterday & today. I haven't been able to read them all to work out who has said what. I am however, pretty happy to come out in FAVOUR of the line drawing. Mainly because, I'm a Maths Geek. And, some other Maths Geek has written the algorithm to draw the lines for VAR Offsides. And, I'm supportive of Maths Geeks. In order to bring Maths Geekery to the Masses, I have illustrated the battle of Dier's knee with the use of two bottles of BrewDog Punk IPA. Because the only people I support more than Maths Geeks are Beer Geeks. I'm thinking some sort of nomination for a Nobel Prize....
If you'd like the #FACTS, have a read. But, mainly, look at the pictures.

http://ball-sup.blogspot.com/2019/11/var-line-calls-chuck-some-beer-at-it.html
 
varkanoid said:
To put it in simple terms.

From what I understand it you cant compare VAR to Hawkeye in Cricket or Tennis because there is the computer showing you the decision so its a lot more accurate. VAR uses a human to determine the decision. Therefore more prone to errors. To err is to be human.

I also thought goal line technology was by Hawkeye (correct me if I`m wrong) and whatever the company that is a decision worked out by a computer. So these comments about 50/60 yards in a pitch, 50fps per second nonsense is we have a third rate system determining decisions over the same distance a computer system can show a football crossing the line my 10mm.

If I remember right Hawkeye were one of the companies going for VAR and they didnt get the contract as they were too expensive ???
Click to expand...


Hawkeye is an easier system, because one of the things that is used to make a decision (goal line/court line) is static.

For football, everything is moving. They’re incomparable.
 
Greenwich Blade said:
Can any clever person provide me with the Radio Sheffield commentary from the goal being scored to the moment the ref disallows it, including the full 3.45 wait?

Inbox me the results if possible. I have a radio show to record tomorrow and I have a Sportsdesk slot on there which I think really needs a VAR remix of a certain surprise hit single for a UK Prog Rock band in 1977.
Click to expand...

Give em some stick Greenwich.
 
Roygbiv said:
Apparently Chris Foy has said it was offside. If the referees genuinely think they're getting it right then there is no hope.
Click to expand...


Thats the big point.

It's the correct decision as the current guidance stands.

Don't leave it to the referees.

Show leadership P.L. bosses, urgently.

Work with the clubs, the refs and bloody sort it. Earn your fat salaries.
 
Woodwardfan said:
I actually believe that Moss got our decision right yesterday - within the current law and the chosen way of ruling offsides.

The chosen way is too rigid and pays too much respect to the technology by applying it to miniscule measures even on that 1st phase of our move yesterday. The technology can't be that accurate in measuring the point at which the ball is kicked and therefore frozen on screen. I trust the lines that the technology produces but not the precise point of the kick impact.

While I have been watching football the offside rules have changed. To be onside the attacker had to have three players between him and the goal and if he was level with the defender he was offside. Also the attacker simply had to be offside, not interfering with the ball, he could be on the opposite wing to be flagged offside.

Apparently when the game was invented any player in front of the ball could be offside!! Then it was changed to 3 men and eventually in 1925 to the current 2 men. ( I'm a bit disconcerted over that because I would have sworn It was like that when I was young, maybe a past life, sure to have been A Blade!!).

So, the current offside rule is way more generous to attackers in the modern game with great flexibilty in rules for not interfering with play, not in line of sight, level with the defender and being played on by an opposition touch.

Having accepted that those changes are generous to the attacking team, the introduction of VAR and the opportunity to take exact measures on a frozen frame of action can reinforce the rules and the big issue is where those lines are drawn.

Should the lines offer the VAR official some discretion depending what part and how much of the body is 'offside'. Personally I think Moss was right to disallow the goal and I reckon the offside rules are generous enough when related to the history of the offside laws,; allow 6 inches for trailing arms/ legs maybe, use the trunk of the body maybe.

Wilder took the decision rationally and with dignity. He is a big man in a man's game and his team dug deep to rescue the point despite the set-back. VAR dimmed our 'hope', as quoted in the thread title, for just a few minutes because the team has character.

Watching MOTD I have to say that Leicester were harder done by than us. How the VAR Official could pretend, yes 'pretend' that penalty call was not 'clear and obvious' beggars belief. It should be noted that such decisions are changed if the error is 'clear and obvious' whereas offside is an exact measure.
Click to expand...


My earlier post from another thread is relevant to this debate I hope.
 
Watching Liverpool City, Salah scored and he looked as offside as Lunny (basically level with the naked eye), went to a VAR check, took about 25 seconds max. So what the actual fuck were they playing at yesterday?

We also didn't see the lines on the screen, so are they just changing it day to day? Where's the info?

Utter shitshow.
 



YES Blade said:
Offsides, as has been pointed out earlier don’t fall under the clear and obvious. They are factual, you are either offside or onside, there is no “well he was only slightly offside, so it’s not a clear and obvious error”.

It’s how the system is implemented which needs improving and in time that will get better, I’m certain of it. It’s like everything, nothing is perfect from day one, it takes time.
Click to expand...
It’s not factual from a replay unless you can confirm the exact moment the boot makes contact with the ball (which you can’t) You pause the film a frame either side of this and it could be the difference between on or offside when we’re dealing in millimetres.
Don’t get me started on the human drawing colourful lines on the freeze frame under pressure to come up with a “conclusive” decision. Deciding which blurred bit of body part can legally touch the ball and sticking his line next to it (neglecting to notice a shoulder, an ear and half a head...deary me
 
bromtom said:
Look at the ball, it's blurry and "leaving his foot", the frame we got shafted with, the ball was as crisp as a winter's morning.
Click to expand...

Sorry I dont agree looks like he has the exact same size 12 boots on that Lundstram had on.
 
Personally i've never been an advocate of VAR as I believe it ruins the spontaneity of the game. However, we were told that it would stop wrong decisions and I was prepared to accept it as I thought it would prevent the big teams getting presents from referees. Unfortunately, every week we are seeing that blatant mistakes are still being made. Obvious shirt pulls are being ignored and the tiniest contact in the box is resulting in a penalty. The Everton penalty the other week for accidentally touching the attackers heel was definitely the softest penalty i have ever seen in 40 years of watching footie. Yesterdays travesty was made all the worse by the Premier League producing evidence to support the decision that looked as if it had been drawn by a competition winner on Vision On. As others have said, the line does not appear to be parallel to the 18 yard line - even accounting for perspective - and at least three parts of the defenders body appear to be beyond the line anyway, namely his head, shoulder and part of his knee. Furthermore, the image is not of a great enough resolution to actually see where Lundstrams' foot is anyway. There is no way anyone can say for certain whether he is offside or not. If you are going to use technology to rule on offsides by millimeters then the technology needs to be up to the job. In cricket, where the technology used is much more accurate, there is still a degree of leeway, namely umpires call, whereby the evidence cannot offer a high enough probability either way and the on pitch decision is not overruled.
 



You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Kop Cat
Ever changing rules
Replies
19
Views
2K
Selly
Selly
ThatJa
Referee
8 9 10
Replies
281
Views
22K
jt64
jt64
bibbity bobbity boo
Pick An Ex-Player
2 3
Replies
67
Views
2K
MayorOJC
MayorOJC
Bla blade
Athletico 1st goal v Liverpool
Replies
10
Views
2K
SwissBlade
SwissBlade
Silkblade
Referee Oliver Langford’s Performance Tonight
2 3
Replies
76
Views
8K
Anarita blade
A

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