Offside rule

[bobbydazzla]

26 minutes ago, Kid Icarus said:

 

Yeah but you're replying to me and disagreeing with my point when I'm only talking about offsides. Where VAR should and shouldn't be involved is another thing I think. VAR imo shouldn't even be involved in offsides partly because it isn't fit for purpose and partly because it takes far too long. In my mind VAR being involved in offsides is as daft as if VAR was involved in goal line decisions in a world where goal line technology already exists. 

 

Goal line tech is fine, the ball either crossed the line or it didn't.

 

Offside tech = no. It's not fit for purpose and shouldn't be used. Last night being an example.

 

• Was Willock technically offside ? Computer says "Yes".
• Did Willock gain an advantage because his forehead was marginally ahead of the defender. Anyone who plays or enjoys watching football as a game of sport says "No"

 

VAR = Only ever used in extreme cases that the ref or lino's couldn't have seen e.g serious foul play off the ball.

 

That's my opinions on the matter. 

 

 

Edited February 11 by bobbydazzla

[Chris_R]

Last night's 'goal' looked offside in real time, and I thought he looked offside in slow-mo and with a freeze frame.

I was actually very surprised that the 3D model had him as close as it did to being onside.

 

Without video replays, the linesman is flagging that because historically linesmen always have. They see someone break the line and more often than not assume they're offside and the flag goes up. I'm not sure there's a world where without video replays that goal stands. At least it was given the chance of standing.

 

Delays are frustrating, but more decisions are now correct even if we can moan about it only being correct by some forehead skin. The alternative is more wrong decisions, and people back to yelling about linesman incompetence, "how can't they get this right?", "why aren't we using technology?"

 

You can't even put in a margin of error - Needs clear daylight etc - because there's still an arbitrary line, you're just moving it somewhere else on the pitch. 

[Yorkie]

2 minutes ago, Kid Icarus said:

Do you really think Linesmen are working with that in mind? To my mind they're attempting to be just as draconianly accurate as any automated offside system is. 

 

I agree with you. They're trying to be as accurate as humanly possible. But I'm saying that - due to the limitations of the human eye - we can only reasonably expect linesmen to spot offsides where the attacker is clearly beyond the defender. Ergo, giving the job to a linesman is the best way to ensure that only the truly unfairly advantages offsides are flagged. Giving it to VAR ensures that every single 'offside' is flagged - whether they're impacting the game or not.

[TheEntertainer]

Just now, Chris_R said:

Last night's 'goal' looked offside in real time, and I thought he looked offside in slow-mo and with a freeze frame.

I was actually very surprised that the 3D model had him as close as it did to being onside.

 

Without video replays, the linesman is flagging that because historically linesmen always have. They see someone break the line and more often than not assume they're offside and the flag goes up. I'm not sure there's a world where without video replays that goal stands. At least it was given the chance of standing.

 

Delays are frustrating, but more decisions are now correct even if we can moan about it only being correct by some forehead skin. The alternative is more wrong decisions, and people back to yelling about linesman incompetence, "how can't they get this right?", "why aren't we using technology?"

 

You can't even put in a margin of error - Needs clear daylight etc - because there's still an arbitrary line, you're just moving it somewhere else on the pitch. 

The margin of error, like the thicker lines suggested previously makes it pass the reasonable test to me though so I think adding a margin of error to change the on field decision is the solution. It currently feels unreasonable that someone ahead of someone by an inch is gaining an advantage, it doesn't feel that way if they're a foot ahead of them. I don't think we should scrap VAR, I just think we should make sure it's doing what it was brought in for, correcting clear and obvious errors and not just fully refereeing the game. 

[El Prontonise]

I thought it looked onside in real time.

[Optimistic Nut]

43 minutes ago, joeyt said:

 

If Tiote's shoulder is in line with Aguero's left foot here you're happy for this to be a goal?

 

Yep.

[Kid Icarus]

1 minute ago, bobbydazzla said:

 

Goal line tech is fine, the ball either crossed the line or it didn't.

 

Offside tech = no. It's not fit for purpose and shouldn't be used. Last night being an example.

 

Was Willock technically offside ? Computer says "Yes".

Did Willock gain an advantage because his forehead was marginally ahead of the defender. Anyone who enjoys football as a game of sport says "No"

 

VAR = Only ever used in extreme cases that the ref or lino's couldn't have seen e.g serious foul play off the ball.

 

That's my opinions on the matter. 

 

The technology isn't currently fit for purpose because it takes far too long - but that needn't be the case. The Premier League uses a system that's slower than the FIFA/UEFA version, and will eventually imo be almost instantaneous. I would imagine we'd all hate goal line technology if it took 3+ minutes to give us the answer. 

 

Do you remember when some channels used to put a flag graphic up on the screen when the linesman flagged? That's how I imagine the technology working. 

[Boey_Jarton]

6 minutes ago, Chris_R said:

Last night's 'goal' looked offside in real time, and I thought he looked offside in slow-mo and with a freeze frame.

I was actually very surprised that the 3D model had him as close as it did to being onside.

 

Without video replays, the linesman is flagging that because historically linesmen always have. They see someone break the line and more often than not assume they're offside and the flag goes up. I'm not sure there's a world where without video replays that goal stands. At least it was given the chance of standing.

 

Delays are frustrating, but more decisions are now correct even if we can moan about it only being correct by some forehead skin. The alternative is more wrong decisions, and people back to yelling about linesman incompetence, "how can't they get this right?", "why aren't we using technology?"

 

You can't even put in a margin of error - Needs clear daylight etc - because there's still an arbitrary line, you're just moving it somewhere else on the pitch. 

Disagree, I thought this looked like a classic 'just onside' in a pre-VAR era because Willock's feet (where the eye are drawn) are behind the defender and the timing of the run looks and feels spot on. 

[The Prophet]

Ultimately, PGMOL have got to ask themselves, is it in the interests of players or spectators to be delaying a game for several minutes to determine whether part of an attacker's anatomy is ahead of the defender?

[Yorkie]

2 minutes ago, Kid Icarus said:

 

The technology isn't currently fit for purpose because it takes far too long - but that needn't be the case. The Premier League uses a system that's slower than the FIFA/UEFA version, and will eventually imo be almost instantaneous. I would imagine we'd all hate goal line technology if it took 3+ minutes to give us the answer. 

 

Do you remember when some channels used to put a flag graphic up on the screen when the linesman flagged? That's how I imagine the technology working. 

 

If there's a version where it's so instantaneous that you don't have the frustration of watching a player go on and score, only for it to be chalked off for a non-offence, I could probably stomach it. Ultimately the most frustrating thing about it all is how it neuters goal celebrations, so if that was eradicated I could live with it.

[Optimistic Nut]

49 minutes ago, joeyt said:

 

The offside law has been fine for decades though,  it's the use of humans using technology that is the problem

 

Bringing in a "daylight" rule just moves the problem to another place. You'll still have it taking ages to decide decisions 

 

But for decades, daylight was the interpretation/guideline the officials would use without the use of technology even if it wasn't the official law. I don't see why there'd be much issue just switching the law to word it like that. 

[Kid Icarus]

1 minute ago, Yorkie said:

 

If there's a version where it's so instantaneous that you don't have the frustration of watching a player go on and score, only for it to be chalked off for a non-offence, I could probably stomach it. Ultimately the most frustrating thing about it all is how it neuters goal celebrations, so if that was eradicated I could live with it.

 

The baseline for the technology when it was rolled out at the World Cup was something like 10 seconds (just guessing based on memory), they didn't faff about like last night, and the graphic would only come up later during a break in play. I remember some people still not liking it, but I thought it was a great start tbh and there's no reason those calculations can't eventually be done almost instantaneously. 

[bobbydazzla]

12 minutes ago, Kid Icarus said:

 

The technology isn't currently fit for purpose because it takes far too long - but that needn't be the case. The Premier League uses a system that's slower than the FIFA/UEFA version, and will eventually imo be almost instantaneous. I would imagine we'd all hate goal line technology if it took 3+ minutes to give us the answer. 

 

Do you remember when some channels used to put a flag graphic up on the screen when the linesman flagged? That's how I imagine the technology working. 

 

Even if offside tech was instantaneous it still doesn't get past the issue of what's "technically" offside and what isn't.

 

Willock's forehead being ahead of the defender. A computer ruling it offside might be in the laws of the game if taken to the letter, but in the real world he didn't gain any advantage from his forehead being offside. Measuring advantage by millimetres is not what the offside rules were created for. 

 

So in my opinion, they'd need to re-write the offside rules to allow for the use of ultra-precise tech. Which is a massive can of worms.

 

Just go back to letting the Lino make the offside call. No need for a computer. The mistakes will balance out and if a Lino isn't cut out for the job and they keep getting calls wrong or showing bias, they should be removed from the job.

 

 

 

 

Edited February 11 by bobbydazzla

[Kid Icarus]

7 minutes ago, bobbydazzla said:

 

Even if offside tech was instantaneous it still doesn't get past the issue of what's "technically" offside and what isn't.

 

Willock's forehead being ahead of the defender. A computer ruling it offside might be in the laws of the game if taken to the letter, but in the real world he didn't gain any advantage from his forehead being offside. 

 

So in my opinion, they'd need to re-write the offside rules. Which is a massive can of worms.

 

Just go back to letting the Lino make the offside call. No need for a computer. The mistakes will balance out and if a Lino isn't cut out for the job or has clear bias and keeps getting it wrong, he shouldn't be removed from the job.

 

 

 

Yeah, those are fair representation of the two options I think (although I think the 'they all balance out' thing is just not true at all).

 

Personally I'd rather deal with the 'he didn't actually gain an advantage' aspect from the first option than the massive variety of problems you get and concessions you have to make with the second option. 

 

 

Edited February 11 by Kid Icarus

[The College Dropout]

3 minutes ago, bobbydazzla said:

 

Even if offside tech was instantaneous it still doesn't get past the issue of what's "technically" offside and what isn't.

 

Willock's forehead being ahead of the defender. A computer ruling it offside might be in the laws of the game if taken to the letter, but in the real world he didn't gain any advantage from his forehead being offside. Measuring "advantage" by millimetres is not what the offside rules were created for. 

 

So in my opinion, they'd need to re-write the offside rules to allow for the use of ultra-precise tech. Which is a massive can of worms.

 

Just go back to letting the Lino make the offside call. No need for a computer. The mistakes will balance out and if a Lino isn't cut out for the job or has clear bias and keeps getting it wrong, he shouldn't be removed from the job.

 

 

 

 

 

No it won't.

 

 

I don't see an easy way to make the rule better. Day light doesn't help.

 

This is better than pre-VAR mind. Remember the Aguero goal we conceded when we lost to City that ultimately sent us down?

[El Prontonise]

1 minute ago, The College Dropout said:

No it won't.

 

 

I don't see an easy way to make the rule better. Day light doesn't help.

 

This is better than pre-VAR mind. Remember the Aguero goal we conceded when we lost to City that ultimately sent us down?

 

We didn't go down because of that goal.

[joeyt]

18 minutes ago, Optimistic Nut said:

 

Yep.

 

That's mad

 

Aguero is clearly gaining an advantage in that situation and is offside. 

 

You'd pretty much just have to rip up the art of defending

[joeyt]

10 minutes ago, Optimistic Nut said:

 

But for decades, daylight was the interpretation/guideline the officials would use without the use of technology even if it wasn't the official law. I don't see why there'd be much issue just switching the law to word it like that. 

 

Because you're then measuring to see if there is daylight or not. 

 

You're still measuring stuff to the nth degree you're just moving the problem

[El Prontonise]

Yeah the more I look into the daylight stuff, you just increasing the grey area even more.

[Steve Charlton]

Skin tight kits and hairless bodies will be required to beat the offside law next season

 

[bobbydazzla]

Just now, The College Dropout said:

No it won't.

 

 

I don't see an easy way to make the rule better. Day light doesn't help.

 

This is better than pre-VAR mind. Remember the Aguero goal we conceded when we lost to City that ultimately sent us down?

 

Research showed that Lino's had a high degree of accuracy before tech got introduced. Why do you believe the few mistakes that get made won't end up balancing out across all teams across an entire season ? 

 

And I don't mean balance out as in exactly equal. But over the course of a season roughly the same amount of Lino offside mistakes are spread across the teams in the league.

 

 

 

 

[The College Dropout]

5 minutes ago, El Prontonise said:

 

We didn't go down because of that goal.

It was the first goal in a 0-2 loss no?

 

Without that goal we have a chance to win that game.

[bobbydazzla]

4 minutes ago, Steve Charlton said:

Skin tight kits and hairless bodies will be required to beat the offside law next season

 

 

And scouts will start ending the careers of footballers with heads shaped like the Tefal men.

 

 

Edited February 11 by bobbydazzla

[The College Dropout]

1 minute ago, bobbydazzla said:

 

Research showed that Lino's had a high degree of accuracy before tech got introduced. Why do you believe the few mistakes that get made won't end up balancing out across all teams across an entire season ? 

 

And I don't mean balance out as in exactly equal. But over the course of a season roughly the same amount of Lino offside mistakes are spread across the teams in the league.

 

 

 

 

The offsides now are markedly more accurate, though. 97% to 99.1% is a massive increase considering how often offsides could be potentially flagged.

 

There's no serious argument about removing it entirely.

 

"Gaining advantage" makes it more confusing and liable for interpretation.

[bobbydazzla]

6 minutes ago, The College Dropout said:

The offsides now are markedly more accurate, though. 97% to 99.1% is a massive increase considering how often offsides could be potentially flagged.

 

There's no serious argument about removing it entirely.

 

"Gaining advantage" makes it more confusing and liable for interpretation.

 

 

More accurate doesn't mean better for the overall game. For the players, for the fans, for the coaches who train the players who now have to try and get them to keep their pubes from going beyond a defender.

 

So that's the serious argument for removing it entirely. It's sucked a lot of the enjoyment out of the game for the people on the pitch and in the stands and watching on telly.

 

What sort of sport are we watching if we can't celebrate a goal until after we're sure it's been reviewed by a computer over the course of a few minutes to determine if it's a goal or not, to the absolute letter of the law of the game, laws that weren't created to be reviewed by computers.

 

And it isn't like accuracy has gone up from low to high. It's gone from very high to slightly very higher. It's not worth the trade off for that extra few %, in my opinion.

 

 

 

 

 

Edited February 11 by bobbydazzla