Offside rule

[joeyt]

9 minutes ago, The College Dropout said:

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

 

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

 

We drew 1-1

[Wolfcastle]

Wouldn't have even celebrated that Leeds equaliser last night if it had been us, would be almost certain they'd find several things to disallowed that for

[joeyt]

That Aguero goal prompted one of my favourite bits of journalism from Louise Taylor

 

Quote

The left-back delivered an incisive dead ball but Newcastle could surely have done better than permit Agüero a free header. Barely believing his luck, the striker – who was a yard or two offside – duly registered his 100th Premier League goal for City and the 22nd of the season.

 

 

 

Edited February 11 by joeyt

[Checko]

42 minutes 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 plays or enjoys watching football as a game of sport says "No"

Adding a 'and in the opinion of the referee gained a material advantage from being in an offside position' clause to every offside decision would be a nightmare though. If part of you is in an offside position when the ball's played you're offside. That's how it's always been.

 

As with ball crossing the line, you're either in an offside position or you're not. 1/10mm is the same as 10m. That'll be the same wherever the line is because that's the nature of offside. As such there has and will always, always, always be incredibly tight offside decisions and people have and will always, always, always complain about them.

 

VAR means more correct decisions, but it comes at a cost of delays, frustrations of not being able to enjoy the moment etc. I think most annoyance with the offside law is actually about the delays and loss of imersion and perhaps higher expectations of perfection with technology so every flaw seems magnified - even though there are fewer errors people get more annoyed when they think one's been made.

 

Really I think it's a case of deciding if the increased accuracy of decisions is worth the hassle. For you it's clearly not and I'm kind of with you to be honest. It does feel a bit of a blessed relief when you play cup games and there's no VAR present.

 

That said, was it Harvey Barne's late chance against PSG that was wrongly flagged for offside? If he'd buried it and there'd been no VAR to correct it I'd have been fuming!

 

Again, as fans we're always going to complain one way or the other.

[bobbydazzla]

13 minutes ago, Checko said:

Adding a 'and in the opinion of the referee gained a material advantage from being in an offside position' clause to every offside decision would be a nightmare though. If part of you is in an offside position when the ball's played you're offside. That's how it's always been.

 

As with ball crossing the line, you're either in an offside position or you're not. 1/10mm is the same as 10m. That'll be the same wherever the line is because that's the nature of offside. As such there has and will always, always, always be incredibly tight offside decisions and people have and will always, always, always complain about them.

 

VAR means more correct decisions, but it comes at a cost of delays, frustrations of not being able to enjoy the moment etc. I think most annoyance with the offside law is actually about the delays and loss of imersion and perhaps higher expectations of perfection with technology so every flaw seems magnified - even though there are fewer errors people get more annoyed when they think one's been made.

 

Really I think it's a case of deciding if the increased accuracy of decisions is worth the hassle. For you it's clearly not and I'm kind of with you to be honest. It does feel a bit of a blessed relief when you play cup games and there's no VAR present.

 

That said, was it Harvey Barne's late chance against PSG that was wrongly flagged for offside? If he'd buried it and there'd been no VAR to correct it I'd have been fuming!

 

Again, as fans we're always going to complain one way or the other.

 

 

We managed fine before 2019. Human error was just a part of the game. It happened sometimes and it caused debate, but that was football. During the game the match still ebbed and flowed the way it was intended to do.

 

Lino accuracy was between 80-90% and there was no disruption to the game because forensic screen based analysis had to be applied to on-field decisions in real time.

 

I'd rather have something slightly less accurate that allowed for the game to be played as intended. Rather than slightly higher accuracy but it comes with all the negatives we have to put up with to achieve the extra few %.

 

 

 

 

Edited February 11 by bobbydazzla

[The College Dropout]

24 minutes ago, joeyt said:

 

We drew 1-1

Ok so it did send us down

[The College Dropout]

Wrong decisions are worse for the game when we have the ability to get them right. The game already feels corrupt let alone choosing to get factual decisions down to human error.

26 minutes ago, bobbydazzla said:

 

 

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.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[bobbydazzla]

6 minutes ago, The College Dropout said:

Wrong decisions are worse for the game when we have the ability to get them right. The game already feels corrupt let alone choosing to get factual decisions down to human error.

 

 

So you believe there's endemic corruption in officiating and using a computer removes that corruption ?

 

I’d massively prioritise player and fan enjoyment of a game that flows in real time, over the slightly increased accuracy of computer based decision making, especially given the negative impact it has on the flow of the game and on the ability of fans and players to react to events on the pitch in the moment that they happen.

 

But each to their own. There's nowt so queer as folk.

 

 

 

Edited February 11 by bobbydazzla

[Cf]

1 hour ago, Kid Icarus said:

 

The VAR world and video games are part of the world we live in though, the technology is there to make it a reality and it's not something that only exists in the abstract.  

 

The technology existed 30 years ago and we didn't bother with it then.

[joeyt]

15 minutes ago, The College Dropout said:

Ok so it did send us down

 

I mean football doesn't work like that does it

[Kid Icarus]

2 minutes ago, Cf said:

The technology existed 30 years ago and we didn't bother with it then.

 

Well yeah, but it's about cost and practicality isn't it. The first calculator didn't fit in a room let alone a pocket. 

[timeEd32]

The rule probably needs tweaking, but I'd immediately feel better about offside reviews if humans weren't involved. Could be AI's greatest contribution to the world.

[Cf]

Just now, Kid Icarus said:

 

Well yeah, but it's about cost and practicality isn't it. The first calculator didn't fit in a room let alone a pocket. 

 

Yeah fair enough but let's say 15 years ago then when i'm sure it was perfectly feasible.

 

The point i'm making is "do we want to re-referree football games with video replays" is something that we could have been doing for a long time. That technology has existed for a long time and I don't accept the argument of "well the technology exists so it's inevitable that we carry on re-refereeing football games in this way". 

[bobbydazzla]

5 minutes ago, Kid Icarus said:

 

Well yeah, but it's about cost and practicality isn't it. The first calculator didn't fit in a room let alone a pocket. 

 

Advances in tech don't always mean life gets better for the majority of people.

 

Case in point; speakerphones.

 

 

[Kid Icarus]

3 minutes ago, Cf said:

 

Yeah fair enough but let's say 15 years ago then when i'm sure it was perfectly feasible.

 

The point i'm making is "do we want to re-referree football games with video replays" is something that we could have been doing for a long time. That technology has existed for a long time and I don't accept the argument of "well the technology exists so it's inevitable that we carry on re-refereeing football games in this way". 

 

Ah, I see why you were saying that now.

 

I'm not proposing video replays to make offside calls, video technology isn't the technology I mean. I'm saying that instead of that we continue to develop the semi-automated offside technology (which uses a combination of sensors, video, and AI) so that we have accurate offside calls in almost real-time. I definitely agree that video offside calls are shit and need to go. 

[bobbydazzla]

Your football tech screen based referee decision making nerds were so preoccupied with whether or not they could, that they didn't stop to think if they should.

[Kid Icarus]

5 minutes ago, bobbydazzla said:

 

Advances in tech don't always mean life gets better for the majority of people.

 

Case in point; speakerphones.

 

Well yeah but there's a fine balance between being John Hammond and being Amish.

[The College Dropout]

30 minutes ago, bobbydazzla said:

 

So you believe there's endemic corruption in officiating and using a computer removes that corruption ?

 

I’d massively prioritise player and fan enjoyment of a game that flows in real time, over the slightly increased accuracy of computer based decision making, especially given the negative impact it has on the flow of the game and on the ability of fans and players to react to events on the pitch in the moment that they happen.

 

But each to their own. There's nowt so queer as folk.

 

 

 

 

I never said all that.

 

The use of VAR for offside is both more accurate and fair. That's it. Some of the decisions are still dodgy, fans still feel cheated. But it's a fairer system than "gaining an advantage" or just using the old linesmen who would make horrific mistakes at times.

[bobbydazzla]

26 minutes ago, The College Dropout said:

I never said all that.

 

The use of VAR for offside is both more accurate and fair. That's it. Some of the decisions are still dodgy, fans still feel cheated. But it's a fairer system than "gaining an advantage" or just using the old linesmen who would make horrific mistakes at times.

 

I never said you said all that.

 

The question I asked about corruption was in response to your comment about corruption. So that bit was for you.

 

The bit about flow of the game were just my own musings on living in the moment during games being far more preferable to slightly improved decision accuracy.

 

And my bit about each to their own was me reflecting on how some people advocate decision accuracy over living in the moment. Which is the opposite to my viewpoint. 

 

 

 

 

Edited February 11 by bobbydazzla

[The College Dropout]

"So you believe there's endemic corruption in officiating and using a computer removes that corruption ?"

 

I never said this but you tried putting words in my mouth.

 

[ikri]

2 hours 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. 

 

And yet, somehow, the offside tech used in Europe takes all of 3 seconds.

[bobbydazzla]

38 minutes ago, The College Dropout said:

"So you believe there's endemic corruption in officiating and using a computer removes that corruption ?"

 

I never said this but you tried putting words in my mouth.

 

 

 

"The game already feels corrupt let alone choosing to get factual decisions down to human error"

 

If I read that in a thread about officiating where all of the discussion is about officiating then I'm interpreting it as the person who posted it is feeling that corruption is an issue amongst the officials making decisions in games.

 

And I was asking you if you believed there was a problem with officals and corruption. It wasn't a rhetorical question.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited February 11 by bobbydazzla

[TRon]

1 hour ago, timeEd32 said:

The rule probably needs tweaking, but I'd immediately feel better about offside reviews if humans weren't involved. Could be AI's greatest contribution to the world.

 

But humans are involved. I wish they weren't, but being the highly suspicious type, I think even technology is being gamed by the wankers sitting in the VAR box. 

[Optimistic Nut]

3 hours ago, El Prontonise said:

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

 

How's it worse than that last night? It was the correct decision under the offside law, but that shouldn't even come into question about being an offside. 

 

 

Edited February 11 by Optimistic Nut

[joeyt]

How are humans not going to be involved?

 

How do you propose if someone is interfering with play or not without humans involved