VARguments

[TZMouk]

which foul do you penalize. yesterdays game was a real disgrace but it is they players / coaches that are doing it
mentioned on ref watch this morning, saying it was virtually impossible for the to do anything as there was that much going on.

Benefit goes to the attacking team for me if it's "offsetting" so to speak. You'll sharp see defenders stop. They only do it because whilst the odds are in their favour they're coached to do it.

 

[dsr-burnley]

You're talking about the old margin of error as if it was big. Everyone used to moan when goals were allowed when it was shown on a freeze frame that an attacker was just offside. Or more if a goal was disallowed even though the attacker was just onside.

You're also mentioning them bringing legs etc into it, but with the offside trial they mentioned using torso only but there was opposition against it.

Pre VAR the margin was small from freeze frames when TV was good enough to free frame it and everyone would moan about it being the wrong decision even though it was inches in it. Though the main issue was the reality of the decisions being wrong as many times it was a lot more than a few inches for the more obvious ones/

You can say that the Premier League can't have different rules but it can. That's because the games are worth millions. A ref making a decision about a foul is subjective but offside player's position is subjective within a very small margin of error. There's no way they would ever go back to what it was and have linesman call it.

That's why it's pointless moaning about it, saying but "He's off by a toenail" etc. it's either got to be onside or offside, it can't be "Well maybe it is, maybe it isn't". That's why they have the thicker lines to take away the thin line and have a grey area which is for the advantage of the attacker. If more people knew about this then they probably wouldn't moan about toenails or a forehead being offside. I would still make the lines a bit thicker to remove more doubt and having a bigger grey area but at least it's to the advantage of the attacker.

These are the total goals a season in the Premier League from the last 5 seasons. It's higher than previous seasons so all these 'offside' goals aren't having any effect on that. The reason behind that is the offside flag not being raised all the time as linesman isn't sure and goals can be scored. Sometime he may not even flag after a goal as I said as it kills celebrations so why flag something if he's not sure. If he does and he's wrong then any goals are flagged offside by linesman then they're corrected by VAR. This is why more are given off by VAR as the linesman leaves the ones he's not sure about to them.

2024/25 1,115 2.93
2023/24 1,246 3.28
2022/23 1,084 2.85
2021/22 1,071 2.82
2020/21 1,024 2.69
2019/20 1,034 2.72

I certainly agree that the lines should be thicker. 2 inches is not enough, even on cameras that work at 1/100th of a second. A forward moves 2 inches without trying in 1/100th of a second. An average sprinter runs at 3.6 inches per second, based on a 10 second 100 yard dash, and at any given time parts of the body are moving faster. The defender may be moving the other way. Even if we accept that the cameras are accurate, every time, to the fraction of an inch, we should still need at least 6 inches margin as a bare minimum - and at that level, we're still at risk of giving someone with a baggy shirt offside when the cameras should be looking at the actual body, not the clothing.

The torso is how linesmen judge offside, and always has been. The powers that be may object to that being put into the rules, but it's there in practice. If two men are running side by side in the Olympic Games and there is a photo finish, it is decided on the torso not on the feet; when a linesman in practice is watching two men running side by side, he is not assessing his view about which man's foot was further forward at the moment the ball was kicked - it would be impossible. He assesses the torsos.

 

[ATTACK ATTACK ATTACK]

I certainly agree that the lines should be thicker. 2 inches is not enough, even on cameras that work at 1/100th of a second. A forward moves 2 inches without trying in 1/100th of a second. An average sprinter runs at 3.6 inches per second, based on a 10 second 100 yard dash, and at any given time parts of the body are moving faster. The defender may be moving the other way. Even if we accept that the cameras are accurate, every time, to the fraction of an inch, we should still need at least 6 inches margin as a bare minimum - and at that level, we're still at risk of giving someone with a baggy shirt offside when the cameras should be looking at the actual body, not the clothing.

The torso is how linesmen judge offside, and always has been. The powers that be may object to that being put into the rules, but it's there in practice. If two men are running side by side in the Olympic Games and there is a photo finish, it is decided on the torso not on the feet; when a linesman in practice is watching two men running side by side, he is not assessing his view about which man's foot was further forward at the moment the ball was kicked - it would be impossible. He assesses the torsos.

3.6 inches per second isn't that fast

It's rare that 2 players running full pelt against each other. The Burnley offside for example was a static defender's foot against a static but moving to lean attacker so minimal margin of error at such slow speed difference. Many more offsides are usually the defender holding a static line and the attacker leaning forward to start his run.

If you'd seen my old posts about this ages ago, I even suggested that they can interpolate the frames easily. They know where the players are over a number of frames so basically could just fill in the frame gaps with fluid motion. This is what modern TVs do with motion blurring elimination tech.

That's it for me as I've said this all before and it's not a science at the end of the day debating an inch here or there, it's football. It's got to be onside or offside somewhere but also consistent enough unlike the complete randomness that they got with linesmen in the past.

Given you get some and you don't then for me, being level with the white wall is fine as long as there's an advantage to the attacker, albeit I'd like it to be more but even now it's a bit to the attacker and a little bit to the defender. We may get a close one given offside next week that is down to an inch but then the next game, or even the same game it would be in our favour.

 

[dsr-burnley]

3.6 inches per second isn't that fast

It's rare that 2 players running full pelt against each other. The Burnley offside for example was a static defender's foot against a static but moving to lean attacker so minimal margin of error at such slow speed difference. Many more offsides are usually the defender holding a static line and the attacker leaning forward to start his run.

If you'd seen my old posts about this ages ago, I even suggested that they can interpolate the frames easily. They know where the players are over a number of frames so basically could just fill in the frame gaps with fluid motion. This is what modern TVs do with motion blurring elimination tech.

That's it for me as I've said this all before and it's not a science at the end of the day debating an inch here or there, it's football. It's got to be onside or offside somewhere but also consistent enough unlike the complete randomness that they got with linesmen in the past.

Given you get some and you don't then for me, being level with the white wall is fine as long as there's an advantage to the attacker, albeit I'd like it to be more but even now it's a bit to the attacker and a little bit to the defender. We may get a close one given offside next week that is down to an inch but then the next game, or even the same game it would be in our favour.

Fair point about the timing - it still took me a little while to spot the error! 3.6 inches per 1/100th of a second might be nearer the mark!

Debating an inch here and an inch there, when it leads to 3 minutes decisions and pointless bits of play when the man is offside but the linesman daren't raise his flag, is not football. Football, as I want to see it, does not involve standing around for 5 minutes at the end of the game waiting to see if we have equalised. The could use VAR to eliminate complete randomness simply by using a photo; if a photo is inconclusive, then it's "umpire's call".

 

[ChrisAshley]

VAR IN?

 

[Fleagle]

I certainly agree that the lines should be thicker. 2 inches is not enough, even on cameras that work at 1/100th of a second. A forward moves 2 inches without trying in 1/100th of a second. An average sprinter runs at 3.6 inches per second, based on a 10 second 100 yard dash, and at any given time parts of the body are moving faster. The defender may be moving the other way. Even if we accept that the cameras are accurate, every time, to the fraction of an inch, we should still need at least 6 inches margin as a bare minimum - and at that level, we're still at risk of giving someone with a baggy shirt offside when the cameras should be looking at the actual body, not the clothing.

Your maths is wrong, or at least your conclusion is, because it’s based on using a single freeze frame image from a single 100 Hz camera but the current offside technology doesn’t use a single camera image it computes the position from multiple cameras, so the error is reduced. It’s valid to say there will be a margin of error, but it will be much less than it would be on a single freeze frame.

The torso is how linesmen judge offside, and always has been. The powers that be may object to that being put into the rules, but it's there in practice. If two men are running side by side in the Olympic Games and there is a photo finish, it is decided on the torso not on the feet; when a linesman in practice is watching two men running side by side, he is not assessing his view about which man's foot was further forward at the moment the ball was kicked - it would be impossible. He assesses the torsos.

I’d happily go with that, but it doesn’t solve the underlying problem, because you’d still have situations where the torso was only a bit offside and some people don’t think you should be given offside if you’re only a bit offside and some people think you should be given offside if you’re only a bit offside.

 

[cluffy]

Some scrumptious VAR toneet