|
Post by emretezzy on Apr 22, 2024 15:28:54 GMT
It was always going to ruin the game ' however we should never forget that prior to VAR pundits, players, managers and some fans were whinging after every decision they didn't like that we needed to make more use of technology. Well now we do and they're still fucking whingeing. Thats because the authorities are so incompetent when it comes to applying the bloody technology. They have not thought about its application in any real detail in their rush to get it implemented. So many aspects of it are badly thought out. Don't get me started on the use of still shots and slow-mo on challenges when making decisions on 'sending offs' If there is 0.01% of interpretation required it can fuck off. They are beyond useless, cheating and its plain as day infront of everyone.
|
|
|
Post by PotterLog on Apr 22, 2024 16:27:11 GMT
Ffs can you be sensible.. it’s a moving, low-angle shot of the action where you can’t even see the players in question at the point the ball is played - look at the proper wide shot of the pitch with the lines on the grass, he’s clearly not “miles onside”. All that clip shows is how deceptive a particular camera angle can be. It’s sad and it’s cruel for Cov, and there’s a debate to be had about whether this is what the rule was meant for and how VAR should be applied, but unfortunately the bloke was offside. Take your first paragraph. Reverse it and your absolutely right. They use dodgy angles, never precisely when the ball is kicked. The lines are like my 3 year old has drew them with a marker pen. It's a fucking shambles and I guarantee we are in the midst of widespread corruption. Its fucking baffling people have one ounce of defense for it. That Scotland goal above is a prime example of screwing a lower team to the benefit of a larger one. On no planet would Spain have had that goal disallowed. Until its done by an independent body with over 100s of cameras proving factually its off. They can fuck right off None of this has any actual basis in evidence though, they're just flimsy accusations. It *is* done by an independent body and they *do* use multiple cameras and angles - the semi-automated version coming in next year monitors every player at something like 27 points on their body and the ball has a sensor which sends a signal 500 times a second to monitor its movement. And for every decision favouring a big team there's one that goes against them - there was even one in the same bloody game the other day - VAR could easily have overturned the Coventry penalty but that's being glossed over in favour of the conspiracy, which apparently you can "guarantee" is afoot... I'm not a huge fan of it and there are serious questions about the way it's applied, but this isn't one of them
|
|
|
Post by superjw on Apr 22, 2024 16:39:10 GMT
It was always going to ruin the game ' however we should never forget that prior to VAR pundits, players, managers and some fans were whinging after every decision they didn't like that we needed to make more use of technology. Well now we do and they're still fucking whingeing. I don’t think there would be much of an issue if VAR applied the rules to the letter and they were binary results. Bit like goal line tech - there isn’t any argument with it. Problem is, even with all this technology the incorrect decisions or lack of where they are actually needed, are being made. I’d prefer the absence of VAR and argue over decisions, than wait 5 minutes after a goal to see if someone has grounds to rule it out, then argue over the rubbish decision they end up making. Debate and arguments over key topics used to be part of the soul of football. Yes officials still made crap decisions but it’s crazy to think that is actually better than what it’s become
|
|
|
Post by Seymour Beaver on Apr 22, 2024 16:43:49 GMT
It was always going to ruin the game ' however we should never forget that prior to VAR pundits, players, managers and some fans were whinging after every decision they didn't like that we needed to make more use of technology. Well now we do and they're still fucking whingeing. Thats because the authorities are so incompetent when it comes to applying the bloody technology. They have not thought about its application in any real detail in their rush to get it implemented. So many aspects of it are badly thought out. Don't get me started on the use of still shots and slow-mo on challenges when making decisions on 'sending offs' Interesting isn't it that pundits on MOTD or Sky can view a VAR decision and still disagree anongst themselves. VAR isn't, never was and never will be the panacea to definitive refereeing decisions because most are based on 'interpretation' of the laws which by definition is never definitive.
|
|
|
Post by Seymour Beaver on Apr 22, 2024 16:45:46 GMT
It was always going to ruin the game ' however we should never forget that prior to VAR pundits, players, managers and some fans were whinging after every decision they didn't like that we needed to make more use of technology. Well now we do and they're still fucking whingeing. I don’t think there would be much of an issue if VAR applied the rules to the letter and they were binary results. Bit like goal line tech - there isn’t any argument with it. Problem is, even with all this technology the incorrect decisions or lack of where they are actually needed, are being made. I’d prefer the absence of VAR and argue over decisions, than wait 5 minutes after a goal to see if someone has grounds to rule it out, then argue over the rubbish decision they end up making. Debate and arguments over key topics used to be part of the soul of football. Yes officials still made crap decisions but it’s crazy to think that is actually better than what it’s become Largely agree (see above).
|
|
|
Post by spitthedog on Apr 22, 2024 18:41:52 GMT
Take your first paragraph. Reverse it and your absolutely right. They use dodgy angles, never precisely when the ball is kicked. The lines are like my 3 year old has drew them with a marker pen. It's a fucking shambles and I guarantee we are in the midst of widespread corruption. Its fucking baffling people have one ounce of defense for it. That Scotland goal above is a prime example of screwing a lower team to the benefit of a larger one. On no planet would Spain have had that goal disallowed. Until its done by an independent body with over 100s of cameras proving factually its off. They can fuck right off None of this has any actual basis in evidence though, they're just flimsy accusations. It *is* done by an independent body and they *do* use multiple cameras and angles - the semi-automated version coming in next year monitors every player at something like 27 points on their body and the ball has a sensor which sends a signal 500 times a second to monitor its movement. And for every decision favouring a big team there's one that goes against them - there was even one in the same bloody game the other day - VAR could easily have overturned the Coventry penalty but that's being glossed over in favour of the conspiracy, which apparently you can "guarantee" is afoot... I'm not a huge fan of it and there are serious questions about the way it's applied, but this isn't one of them The ‘conspiracy’ and the VAR implementation issues are two completely different debates and should not be mixed up here. I personally don’t think there is much evidence of a bias, but the implementation is just amateurish and seems to have completely overlooked some important aspects of the game . The use of freeze frames and slow mo is just one example of how VAR completely distorts the reality. The drawn offside line does not seem reliable. It cannot be with the weird angles that are used, and the way VAR is implemented is so badly inconsistent amongst officials which tells us that there is actually more subjectivity in its use compared to when decisions were made by on field officials. This is not to mention the way it undermines the match day experience.There are so many issues with it as well as the fact that the fans who are actually at the games detest it. I’m not against it if used properly but it simply is very difficult, if not impossible, to apply to many parts of this game based on the evidence so far.
|
|
|
Post by stokeyank on Apr 22, 2024 18:44:15 GMT
They now have the tachnology to quickly and accurately determine offsides. That and goal line tech are the ONLY things that should be allowed to be "reviewed".
|
|
|
Post by emretezzy on Apr 22, 2024 19:50:25 GMT
Take your first paragraph. Reverse it and your absolutely right. They use dodgy angles, never precisely when the ball is kicked. The lines are like my 3 year old has drew them with a marker pen. It's a fucking shambles and I guarantee we are in the midst of widespread corruption. Its fucking baffling people have one ounce of defense for it. That Scotland goal above is a prime example of screwing a lower team to the benefit of a larger one. On no planet would Spain have had that goal disallowed. Until its done by an independent body with over 100s of cameras proving factually its off. They can fuck right off None of this has any actual basis in evidence though, they're just flimsy accusations. It *is* done by an independent body and they *do* use multiple cameras and angles - the semi-automated version coming in next year monitors every player at something like 27 points on their body and the ball has a sensor which sends a signal 500 times a second to monitor its movement. And for every decision favouring a big team there's one that goes against them - there was even one in the same bloody game the other day - VAR could easily have overturned the Coventry penalty but that's being glossed over in favour of the conspiracy, which apparently you can "guarantee" is afoot... I'm not a huge fan of it and there are serious questions about the way it's applied, but this isn't one of them Yeah you agree with me then. At the moment it's done by a team of clowns and no one will be happy until its fully automated.
|
|
|
Post by jesusmcmuffin on Apr 22, 2024 19:54:41 GMT
Clear offside goal for Leeds
You'd be annoyed if challenging them for promotion
|
|
|
Post by Olgrligm on Apr 22, 2024 22:08:55 GMT
My hope is that this cause is one of such genuine popular sympathy that it finally puts paid to VAR.
I mean really, how can you try to eradicate errors entirely subjective decisions when the people making the subjective 'errors' in the first place are the same ones watching the video monitors?
|
|
|
Post by CBUFAWKIPWH on Apr 23, 2024 6:35:04 GMT
Thats not true when the evidence presented is so inconclusive and ambiguous. There are so many questions over how this was applied. Whether the line used is accurate (I don't think it is) and the angle used distorts the reality (the angle and its application is not reliable) Why the photo used for decision making is not consistent with when the ball is actually kicked.The lino decided it wasn't offside so that seems alot more dependable in this case. at least he was actually more in line with play. VAR wasn't. The crux of the matter is the use of a 'photograph' to determine on or offside. It is impossible to determine the decisive moment when the ball was played and the receiving player moved. It's a dynamic team sport not a man jumping over a puddle at the Gare du Nor. Regardless of club loyalty or bias, any football fan watching that knows that Coventry were denied the greatest FA Cup semi final comeback in history (other decisions within the game prior to this offside are moot). It isn't a photograph - it's a still from a video frozen played at slow speed at the moment the ball leaves the foot of the the person passing the ball. Strictly speaking it is more accurate than a linesman making the decision in real time but that isn't the point. Going for ridiculous levels of accuracy is just killing the live experience. VAR is for pendants and arm chair fans - it's ruining the experience for the fans actually at the game. VAR was supposed to get rid of controversy and it hasn't, if anything it's made things worse. I thought at the time the Coventry player was offside but has VAR actually made that game better? I'm sure Man Utd fans would be moaning their bag off in perpetuity about being robbed but I'm pretty sure the sum total of human happiness would have increased substantially had the goal stood and it would have been remembered as one of the greatest FA Cup semi finals of all time even if everyone knew the winning goal might have been millimeters offside. Fuck accuracy, it's the emotion that counts - people can live with mistakes, television pedantry is killing the live experience.
|
|
|
Post by jesusmcmuffin on Apr 23, 2024 6:40:51 GMT
The crux of the matter is the use of a 'photograph' to determine on or offside. It is impossible to determine the decisive moment when the ball was played and the receiving player moved. It's a dynamic team sport not a man jumping over a puddle at the Gare du Nor. Regardless of club loyalty or bias, any football fan watching that knows that Coventry were denied the greatest FA Cup semi final comeback in history (other decisions within the game prior to this offside are moot). It isn't a photograph - it's a still from a video frozen played at slow speed at the moment the ball leaves the foot of the the person passing the ball. Strictly speaking it is more accurate than a linesman making the decision in real time but that isn't the point. Going for ridiculous levels of accuracy is just killing the live experience. VAR is for pendants and arm chair fans - it's ruining the experience for the fans actually at the game. VAR was supposed to get rid of controversy and it hasn't, if anything it's made things worse. I thought at the time the Coventry player was offside but has VAR actually made that game better? I'm sure Man Utd fans would be moaning their bag off in perpetuity about being robbed but I'm pretty sure the sum total of human happiness would have increased substantially had the goal stood and it would have been remembered as one of the greatest FA Cup semi finals of all time even if everyone knew the winning goal might have been millimeters offside. Fuck accuracy, it's the emotion that counts - people can live with mistakes, television pedantry is killing the live experience. If we were robbed by an offside goal in a semi final would we be moaning?...in fact decades later some still are about a game where they feel we were hard done by . I get that many wanted the big upset but clouding it
|
|
|
Post by CBUFAWKIPWH on Apr 23, 2024 7:20:08 GMT
It isn't a photograph - it's a still from a video frozen played at slow speed at the moment the ball leaves the foot of the the person passing the ball. Strictly speaking it is more accurate than a linesman making the decision in real time but that isn't the point. Going for ridiculous levels of accuracy is just killing the live experience. VAR is for pendants and arm chair fans - it's ruining the experience for the fans actually at the game. VAR was supposed to get rid of controversy and it hasn't, if anything it's made things worse. I thought at the time the Coventry player was offside but has VAR actually made that game better? I'm sure Man Utd fans would be moaning their bag off in perpetuity about being robbed but I'm pretty sure the sum total of human happiness would have increased substantially had the goal stood and it would have been remembered as one of the greatest FA Cup semi finals of all time even if everyone knew the winning goal might have been millimeters offside. Fuck accuracy, it's the emotion that counts - people can live with mistakes, television pedantry is killing the live experience. If we were robbed by an offside goal in a semi final would we be moaning?...in fact decades later some still are about a game where they feel we were hard done by . I get that many wanted the big upset but clouding it Of course we would. And we would be moaning if VAR robbed us of possibly the greatest moment in our footballing history. How many football fans do you know who would say well to be fair VAR was right our strikers toe was in front of their defenders. Apart from the one on his own in the corner of the pub reading Pedants Monthly latest fascinating article on the impact of pixel density on the eradication of spontaneous joy in competitive sport.
|
|
|
Post by FullerMagic on Apr 23, 2024 13:03:11 GMT
This light being shone on who refs support is interesting. Fascinating that Madley was moved from a Birmingham game a couple of weeks ago due to his Huddersfield links - but then allowed to ref other relegation 6-pointers. Surely when the league has splintered into mini-leagues, refs have got to moved, if only for appearances, from matches directly impacting them. www.birminghammail.co.uk/sport/football/football-news/key-birmingham-city-v-cardiff-28969709The referee who will take charge of Birmingham City's crucial fixture with Cardiff City on Wednesday night has changed, it has been confirmed by the EFL. The experienced Bobby Madley had initially been appointed as the man who'd oversee proceedings at St Andrew's tonight, but now the man in the middle will be Sam Allison. Madley, who has plentiful Premier League and European experience, is known to be a Huddersfield Town supporter Having originally been appointed by the Professional Game Match Officials Limited (PGMOL) who distribute referees across all games in the Premier League and EFL, Madley has since been moved off Blues. Now you've got a big Notts County fan reffing crucial Luton games. Seems odd
|
|
|
Post by Los Alfareros on Apr 23, 2024 13:15:10 GMT
It's complete bollocks and needs fucking off asap.
All it has proved is that humans make errors, with or without the technology, nothing is ever conclusive which is why pundits take hours talking about incidents and still not everyone agree's!!!
Goal line tech has to stay for goals, and that is it. Train ref's and liners to be as good and as fit as possible, and let the humans fuck it up!!
|
|
|
Post by starkiller on Apr 23, 2024 14:02:58 GMT
Get rid.
Even goal celebrations are pointless.
|
|
|
Post by PotterLog on Apr 23, 2024 14:32:52 GMT
This light being shone on who refs support is interesting. Fascinating that Madley was moved from a Birmingham game a couple of weeks ago due to his Huddersfield links - but then allowed to ref other relegation 6-pointers. Surely when the league has splintered into mini-leagues, refs have got to moved, if only for appearances, from matches directly impacting them. www.birminghammail.co.uk/sport/football/football-news/key-birmingham-city-v-cardiff-28969709The referee who will take charge of Birmingham City's crucial fixture with Cardiff City on Wednesday night has changed, it has been confirmed by the EFL. The experienced Bobby Madley had initially been appointed as the man who'd oversee proceedings at St Andrew's tonight, but now the man in the middle will be Sam Allison. Madley, who has plentiful Premier League and European experience, is known to be a Huddersfield Town supporter Having originally been appointed by the Professional Game Match Officials Limited (PGMOL) who distribute referees across all games in the Premier League and EFL, Madley has since been moved off Blues. Now you've got a big Notts County fan reffing crucial Luton games. Seems odd Where do you stop with that though? Any fixture could potentially affect a team a ref supposedly supports. Also, are we meant to assume that just because someone supports Notts County that they HATE Forest so much that they'll bring their own profession into disrepute by being biased towards another team in a game that may or may not affect them? It could just as well be the other way round and they'd want them to do well (good for the city ). Or - by far most likely - they won't allow it to influence them. If refs have a strong allegiance to one particular team, fair enough, I guess declare it and they don't ref them. Other than that we should accept referees are professionals and are not going to allow some possible connected permutation affect their real-time reffing of a match.
|
|
|
Post by starkiller on Apr 23, 2024 14:41:42 GMT
One of the, if not THE, greatest moments in the history of the FA Cup ruined because officials are now actively looking to disallow goals. The human element of the game has been removed and it's little more than a computer game now. In that pic the ball hadn’t been released, the Cov player is stationary and the United player is running towards the goal Can VAR split seconds yet ? Absolute farce. There is a serious issue at which point they choose the freeze frame. I've noticed this numerous times before. Just that fraction of a second and the point of the boot on the ball can make significant difference to the position of players. Can't even trust those cartoon lines are square on. And why are earlier rounds allowed to be played without var until the big boys show up?
|
|
|
Post by davethebass on Apr 23, 2024 17:49:17 GMT
One of the, if not THE, greatest moments in the history of the FA Cup ruined because officials are now actively looking to disallow goals. The human element of the game has been removed and it's little more than a computer game now. I don't think that the line is accurate for a starter. Plus this freeze frame is when the player's foot first touches the ball. He scoops it so it's still going to be in contact with his foot for a while yet. I reckon by the time the ball actually leaves his foot, the defender's run a bit further and played him onside. If indeed he's offside in this picture anyway because I agree, the line's possibly not drawn correctly.
|
|
|
Post by davethebass on Apr 23, 2024 18:11:33 GMT
Plus, those lines drawn should have associated error bars, based on frame rate and estimated time of ball being in contact with foot. If those error bars overlap (which they certainly would do in this case) then a decision cannot be made with certainty, and the benefit of that doubt should be given to the attacker.
Whoever organises this VAR does not even understand basic physics ffs
|
|
|
Post by innocentbystander on Apr 23, 2024 18:16:06 GMT
How long will it be before they start using VAR pauses for TV ad breaks ?
|
|
|
Post by skip on Apr 23, 2024 19:20:51 GMT
Plus, those lines drawn should have associated error bars, based on frame rate and estimated time of ball being in contact with foot. If those error bars overlap (which they certainly would do in this case) then a decision cannot be made with certainty, and the benefit of that doubt should be given to the attacker. Whoever organises this VAR does not even understand basic physics ffs It's hardly any wonder they get it wrong, it's not fit for purpose is it. The written offside rule doesn't even state that offside shall be determined when a player first touches the ball with their boot or when the ball leaves the foot and makes its way to other player. And we never see the lines drawn from the attacking/passing player's foot. All that is happening now is that the persons in the VAR tea hut are making the decision instead of the referee's assistant. VAR 'sounds' all futuristic, like Hawk Eye in cricket or whatnot, but it's anything but. Hawk Eye has a purpose that transcends human vision, and similarly in tennis, the line calling system is similar to goal line technology and works. VAR for offside is completely different and clearly doesn't work. Hawkeye and the one in tennis, and goal line technology focus upon one line. VAR attempts to read offside but there are two lines towards the vanishing point, and involves the correct interpretation of a minimum of three humans in motion. The likelihood for error is huge.
|
|
|
Post by lordb on Apr 23, 2024 19:31:12 GMT
VAR FIO
|
|
|
Post by mickeythemaestro on Apr 23, 2024 19:39:15 GMT
I'm assuming FIO means fuck it off 👍
|
|
|
Post by davethebass on Apr 23, 2024 20:00:20 GMT
Plus, those lines drawn should have associated error bars, based on frame rate and estimated time of ball being in contact with foot. If those error bars overlap (which they certainly would do in this case) then a decision cannot be made with certainty, and the benefit of that doubt should be given to the attacker. Whoever organises this VAR does not even understand basic physics ffs It's hardly any wonder they get it wrong, it's not fit for purpose is it. The written offside rule doesn't even state that offside shall be determined when a player first touches the ball with their boot or when the ball leaves the foot and makes its way to other player. And we never see the lines drawn from the attacking/passing player's foot. All that is happening now is that the persons in the VAR tea hut are making the decision instead of the referee's assistant. VAR 'sounds' all futuristic, like Hawk Eye in cricket or whatnot, but it's anything but. Hawk Eye has a purpose that transcends human vision, and similarly in tennis, the line calling system is similar to goal line technology and works. VAR for offside is completely different and clearly doesn't work. Hawkeye and the one in tennis, and goal line technology focus upon one line. VAR attempts to read offside but there are two lines towards the vanishing point, and involves the correct interpretation of a minimum of three humans in motion. The likelihood for error is huge. Yep the way they interpret it is definitely not fit for purpose... they're making the basic naïve error of mistaking precision for accuracy. You can be as precise as you like with drawing lines on a freeze frame, but if that freeze frame doesn't accurately represent the exact moment in time that is relevant, then that precision is meaningless. And wow didn't know that about the written offside rule! Well in that case, the error bars here are huge! And they definitely overlap. I'm amazed that there's such a level of incomprehension at the highest level of the game. And yep, it's definitely not like goal line technology or Hawkeye. The likelihood for error, for the reasons we've stated, is indeed huge. I'm staggered none of the pundits ever raise these issues regards VAR offside decisions.
|
|
|
Post by onlyonesirstan on Apr 23, 2024 20:04:49 GMT
VAR had a look at the tackle by Jackson, which according to the bbc website, was reckless. The referee didn't even give him a yellow card.
|
|
|
Post by starkiller on Apr 24, 2024 8:46:23 GMT
Level is onside.
Players were level.
= Onside.
A game played by humans should be judged by humans. Not freeze framing and drawing thick lines at will.
|
|
|
Post by salopstick on Apr 24, 2024 10:38:39 GMT
I've said it before, but the offside law needs to be changed so that if any part of you, that can score/play on legally, is onside then you are onside. its ironic that the ball is out of play ONLY if the whole ball is over the line
|
|
|
Post by AlliG on Apr 24, 2024 15:57:53 GMT
It's hardly any wonder they get it wrong, it's not fit for purpose is it. The written offside rule doesn't even state that offside shall be determined when a player first touches the ball with their boot or when the ball leaves the foot and makes its way to other player. And we never see the lines drawn from the attacking/passing player's foot. All that is happening now is that the persons in the VAR tea hut are making the decision instead of the referee's assistant. VAR 'sounds' all futuristic, like Hawk Eye in cricket or whatnot, but it's anything but. Hawk Eye has a purpose that transcends human vision, and similarly in tennis, the line calling system is similar to goal line technology and works. VAR for offside is completely different and clearly doesn't work. Hawkeye and the one in tennis, and goal line technology focus upon one line. VAR attempts to read offside but there are two lines towards the vanishing point, and involves the correct interpretation of a minimum of three humans in motion. The likelihood for error is huge. Yep the way they interpret it is definitely not fit for purpose... they're making the basic naïve error of mistaking precision for accuracy. You can be as precise as you like with drawing lines on a freeze frame, but if that freeze frame doesn't accurately represent the exact moment in time that is relevant, then that precision is meaningless. And wow didn't know that about the written offside rule! Well in that case, the error bars here are huge! And they definitely overlap. I'm amazed that there's such a level of incomprehension at the highest level of the game. And yep, it's definitely not like goal line technology or Hawkeye. The likelihood for error, for the reasons we've stated, is indeed huge. I'm staggered none of the pundits ever raise these issues regards VAR offside decisions. I was having this very argument about the Offside Law in the pub on Monday night. The Law was originally written in the 19th Century and the various updates have all generally concentrated on the "receiving" player(s). That was not a problem when the decision was solely being made by a man with a flag who was having to try and watch the person playing the ball and the position of the forwards and defenders some distance away at the same time. There was no need to define when the ball was played because of the limitations of the eyesight of the human making the decision. However when the action is filmed at say 25 or 50 fps the ball is likely to be "in contact" with the ball player for more than one frame, while the forwards and defenders will move a number of centimetres between frames. It is even more complex than that because a ball played back to a player to kick forward will be in contact with the kicker for longer than it would be if he just helped it on or made a glancing contact. (The best examples of this come from boxing. Watching live or on TV you can tell a good punch, but, a high speed photo at just the right moment will show an unbelievable amount of distortion to the head or body of the person being struck). Under the current rules a player can be offside if the film is recorded at 25 fps but not if recorded at 50 fps or 100 fps (or vice-versa). I am not sure I would trust FIFA to come up with a definition of when the ball is played that was clear and easily understood.
|
|
|
Post by davethebass on Apr 24, 2024 16:57:00 GMT
Yep the way they interpret it is definitely not fit for purpose... they're making the basic naïve error of mistaking precision for accuracy. You can be as precise as you like with drawing lines on a freeze frame, but if that freeze frame doesn't accurately represent the exact moment in time that is relevant, then that precision is meaningless. And wow didn't know that about the written offside rule! Well in that case, the error bars here are huge! And they definitely overlap. I'm amazed that there's such a level of incomprehension at the highest level of the game. And yep, it's definitely not like goal line technology or Hawkeye. The likelihood for error, for the reasons we've stated, is indeed huge. I'm staggered none of the pundits ever raise these issues regards VAR offside decisions. I was having this very argument about the Offside Law in the pub on Monday night. The Law was originally written in the 19th Century and the various updates have all generally concentrated on the "receiving" player(s). That was not a problem when the decision was solely being made by a man with a flag who was having to try and watch the person playing the ball and the position of the forwards and defenders some distance away at the same time. There was no need to define when the ball was played because of the limitations of the eyesight of the human making the decision. However when the action is filmed at say 25 or 50 fps the ball is likely to be "in contact" with the ball player for more than one frame, while the forwards and defenders will move a number of centimetres between frames.
It is even more complex than that because a ball played back to a player to kick forward will be in contact with the kicker for longer than it would be if he just helped it on or made a glancing contact. (The best examples of this come from boxing. Watching live or on TV you can tell a good punch, but, a high speed photo at just the right moment will show an unbelievable amount of distortion to the head or body of the person being struck). Under the current rules a player can be offside if the film is recorded at 25 fps but not if recorded at 50 fps or 100 fps (or vice-versa). I am not sure I would trust FIFA to come up with a definition of when the ball is played that was clear and easily understood. Exactly. Which would give an error bar of a number of centimetres. And they give him offside by obviously less than what that would be, so their decision should be invalid really. Plus his foot will have been in contact with the ball for even longer than a simple pass forwards, let alone a glance, because of the way he's scooped it, so that number of centimetres will be a considerable number. I'm not sure I'd trust FIFA to come up with a definition of that neither.
|
|