VAR in Cameroon Vs Chile (Confederations Cup)
- Thread starter one
- Start date
santa sangria
RefChat Addict
Also in the other thread. AR is well positioned. Benefit of the doubt to attacker. Millimetres in it. This is not clear. VAR should already be telling the ref NOT to call for VAR, not the other way around
one
RefChat Addict
Agreed. This should have been AR's call had he flagged or not. Its close enough to leave it to his call. Kind of like Cricket LBW hawk eye call. Anything within a certain margin of error should mean the original call.
Having said that I thing it won't be too long before a hawk eye or GLT style technology is used to make offside decisions with much more accuracy and much more speed. But until then, unless its a clear error, don't even go to VAR.
Having said that I thing it won't be too long before a hawk eye or GLT style technology is used to make offside decisions with much more accuracy and much more speed. But until then, unless its a clear error, don't even go to VAR.
Also in the other thread. AR is well positioned. Benefit of the doubt to attacker. Millimetres in it. This is not clear. VAR should already be telling the ref NOT to call for VAR, not the otherorway around
That's a good point about the VAR informing the referee that no action is required.
i don't get this argument.
it's either offside or it isn't. it's close yes, very close, but on review it is offside. how can you possibly justify using technology in the hope of getting more decisions right then deciding not to accept the decision it gives because it's a close call? this is not a decision that's open to interpretation, it is offside.
in comparison to cricket, the umpires call is there partly because there is a degree of uncertainty about the track of the ball after it hits the pads, something that doesn't occur in football.
it's either offside or it isn't. it's close yes, very close, but on review it is offside. how can you possibly justify using technology in the hope of getting more decisions right then deciding not to accept the decision it gives because it's a close call? this is not a decision that's open to interpretation, it is offside.
in comparison to cricket, the umpires call is there partly because there is a degree of uncertainty about the track of the ball after it hits the pads, something that doesn't occur in football.
santa sangria
RefChat Addict
Surely there can be some uncertainty in football about the exact frame of the passer kicking the ball, the angle of the camera, the flap of a shirt in the wind... in this case, fair enough, the replay shows that there is an offside offence that wasn't (probably) detectable by the human eye without assistance... and OK, there is nothing in the laws about giving the attacker the benefit of the doubt... so... OK... by the laws as they stand it is offside... is this sustainable though at the highest level and what is the impact on us at lower levels?
yeah i see what you're saying there, makes sense.
It's definitely possible that we have a situation where the frames of the TV replay show the moment before the pass is played with the attacker onside and the moment after it's played with the attacker offside. presumably in such cases the decision will remain with the one given on field at the time.
i'm not sure there is any impact on us at the lower levels to be fair, we can only give what we see with no possibility of 'help' from a VAR!
Ciley Myrus
RefChat Addict
Also in the camp of, its offside.
Totally accept the principle of AR being human and its a very tight call
But a ball which is "just" over the line for a goal, deserves to be a goal.
On that basis, anyone who is "just" offside, should, be called offside.
Cant go changing the principles of the decision.
Totally accept the principle of AR being human and its a very tight call
But a ball which is "just" over the line for a goal, deserves to be a goal.
On that basis, anyone who is "just" offside, should, be called offside.
Cant go changing the principles of the decision.
one
RefChat Addict
I am not so sure if it is "just offside". His arm is definitely in front but that doesn't count. The frame rate, camera angle which is not exactly in line... all create enough doubt in there for me. The current technology is not good enough to call this offside with 100% certainty.
If I am not sure the ball is over the line with certainty I won't call it a goal. Same goes for offside.
If I am not sure the ball is over the line with certainty I won't call it a goal. Same goes for offside.
Peter Grove
RefChat Addict
For me, judgements of offside are not as clear-cut as judging whether a ball is over the goal line or not. As others have mentioned, there are a lot more variables. The ball over the goal line judgement is purely a physical one. If at any time, the whole of the ball crosses the line, it's a goal.
With offside there's a question of timing, frame rate, angle, how the offside line should be drawn etc. For instance, when exactly should the judgement be made? Is it when the player's foot first contacts the ball, when the ball actually leaves his foot or somewhere in between?
What frame rate should be used for the freeze frame - 1 frame per second, 100 frames per second, 1000 frames per second? How exactly do you draw the offside line in relation to the image? Is it a simple line on the surface of the field, with the VAR then judging an imaginary vertical plane extending upwards from the playing surface and intersecting with the player's body or do you actually create an image of that vertical plane (as I have seen done on some replays) to help the VAR make the judgement? You will get a different answer, depending on which criteria you use.
With offside there's a question of timing, frame rate, angle, how the offside line should be drawn etc. For instance, when exactly should the judgement be made? Is it when the player's foot first contacts the ball, when the ball actually leaves his foot or somewhere in between?
What frame rate should be used for the freeze frame - 1 frame per second, 100 frames per second, 1000 frames per second? How exactly do you draw the offside line in relation to the image? Is it a simple line on the surface of the field, with the VAR then judging an imaginary vertical plane extending upwards from the playing surface and intersecting with the player's body or do you actually create an image of that vertical plane (as I have seen done on some replays) to help the VAR make the judgement? You will get a different answer, depending on which criteria you use.
one
RefChat Addict
Me: How far exactly is the attacker offside by?
VAR: hard to be exact. Its close but I can tell he is offside.
Me: how far by?
VAR: I’d say 10cm
Me: what if I say the margin of error in the method/technology you are using is 12cm
VAR: but you can’t prove that. There has been no research done on it. You are just guessing.
Me: so are you on the 10cm
VAR: True
Me: so it’s fair to say, based on guess work, there is a possibility, the attacker is onside by up to 2cm.
VAR: I GUESS SO
Me: I rest my case
On a side note; the margin of error required by FIFA for GLT is 3cm or less. Hawk eye claims its GLT's margin of error is 0.5cm.
VAR: hard to be exact. Its close but I can tell he is offside.
Me: how far by?
VAR: I’d say 10cm
Me: what if I say the margin of error in the method/technology you are using is 12cm
VAR: but you can’t prove that. There has been no research done on it. You are just guessing.
Me: so are you on the 10cm
VAR: True
Me: so it’s fair to say, based on guess work, there is a possibility, the attacker is onside by up to 2cm.
VAR: I GUESS SO
Me: I rest my case
On a side note; the margin of error required by FIFA for GLT is 3cm or less. Hawk eye claims its GLT's margin of error is 0.5cm.
Totally agree, and always overlooked when tv replays draw the imaginary line. At what exact moment do you freeze the image? With defenders and attackers often moving in opposite directions, the moment when someone (I assume it's still a human being doing that) pushes that "freeze button" can be decisive in a number of cases.
Chips in the boots coming? Can't wait for the first story about the chips being hacked by the gambling mob. Or by the Russians.
(Of course, more than nine out of ten offsides are not at all "too close to call", and in those cases videos are an amazing help. Let's not forget that.)
Last edited: