review using 'normal' freeze frame - if too close to call its 'level' and onside
Due to the immense marketing engine behind football, I don't think there's any evidence of decline in spectator numbers in professional footballAgree - but also frame rate has to determine (as per law) when the Leeds player FIRST touched the ball - it can't with 100% accuracy - so 'offside' player position isn't totally accurate. Agree (for a change) with Gary Lineker - review using 'normal' freeze frame - if too close to call its 'level' and onside.
Football is losing its audience - GL said he asked on twitter if VAR should be kept or junked and out of a response of 250,000, 75% wanted it got rid of.
Now we can sit here from our position of knowledge of the laws, the VAR process and how it works & pour scorn on the fans' opinions but if that opinion is mirrored across all fans - then that's something the authorities should take note of.
It would add a layer of complexity, for sure.Mulling over the offside law - for a change!
Feel free to shout/mock/disagree/cheer as you see fit - but here goes!
As we all know its not an offence to be in an offside position and that an offence is only committed if/when the player touches the ball (plus a few other instances, not relevant to this debate)
If attacker plays the ball with his foot, is it correct in law to call it an offence if his upper arm was offside, but his foot - the actual part of the body he played the ball with - were perfectly onside?
Now I know we're getting into minute detail here, but if we're going to draw lines from below the armpit on both defenders and attackers, then clearly we're into such detail already.
Personally I would go with a 'normal replay' and if not obvious one way or the other its onside but we are where we are, so would if feet onside and you play the ball with feet then that's OK, work in law?
Mulling over the offside law - for a change!
Feel free to shout/mock/disagree/cheer as you see fit - but here goes!
As we all know its not an offence to be in an offside position and that an offence is only committed if/when the player touches the ball (plus a few other instances, not relevant to this debate)
If attacker plays the ball with his foot, is it correct in law to call it an offence if his upper arm was offside, but his foot - the actual part of the body he played the ball with - were perfectly onside?
Now I know we're getting into minute detail here, but if we're going to draw lines from below the armpit on both defenders and attackers, then clearly we're into such detail already.
Personally I would go with a 'normal replay' and if not obvious one way or the other its onside but we are where we are, so would if feet onside and you play the ball with feet then that's OK, work in law?
Ok, i’ll Mock it!Mulling over the offside law - for a change!
Feel free to shout/mock/disagree/cheer as you see fit - but here goes!
As we all know its not an offence to be in an offside position and that an offence is only committed if/when the player touches the ball (plus a few other instances, not relevant to this debate)
If attacker plays the ball with his foot, is it correct in law to call it an offence if his upper arm was offside, but his foot - the actual part of the body he played the ball with - were perfectly onside?
Now I know we're getting into minute detail here, but if we're going to draw lines from below the armpit on both defenders and attackers, then clearly we're into such detail already.
Personally I would go with a 'normal replay' and if not obvious one way or the other its onside but we are where we are, so would if feet onside and you play the ball with feet then that's OK, work in law?
Ok, i’ll Mock it!
OS is about a player being off his side (team) and unable to participate. Parts of one’s body don’t leave a team.
If we want a change for simplicity (and I’m a bit ambivalent) I would agree with using the feet. The waist would also work, but feet are probably easier to implement in the heat of the moment for an AR.
Thanks all, so a simple feet used for offside would work - sort of!
On reflection, I'm slightly concerned, like a couple of you above, that what seems like a great idea watching Match of the Day, wouldn't seem such a great idea when I'm standing on the touchline 'working'!
Feet are ok if they are always on the ground and the part on the ground is the furthest part otherwise we have the same problem. We can't change things with a solution which still has problems. That's what they did with theblines.
It should be simple, use technology only if it can call it without human involvement (like GLT). Otherwise no tech at all (i.e. no line) and AR call stands unless we have clear evidence it's wrong.
The problem with no lines at all, is camera angles can be so deceptive. You either need some kind of lines to help guide the eye correctly, or a system where the camera is able to perfectly be where the AR is "supposed" to be.
My preferred solution is to overlay a grid of lines at 1m or even 0.5m intervals on the pitch. It doesn't fake a degree of accuracy like the current system does, and allows for a degree of "not sure, let's just get on with it" to occur, but by including some lines, it slightly reduces the risk of the VAR making a mistake based on a misleading angle.
I agree with this too. There should be an option to go with on field call when the Margin of error is too low.It should be simple, use technology only if it can call it without human involvement (like GLT). Otherwise no tech at all (i.e. no line) and AR call stands unless we have clear evidence it's wrong.
Which is exactly how it is used in the US--no lines drawn and AR call stands unless VAR can clearly determine OSP was incorrect on the field.I agree with this too. There should be an option to go with on field call when the Margin of error is too low.
Which is exactly how it is used in the US--no lines drawn and AR call stands unless VAR can clearly determine OSP was incorrect on the field.
Maybe I am. Being Naive, but I think that's it. As soon as everyone realises there is a margin of error, and gets comfortable with it, surely all this nonsense goes away.I realize that team preferences, fan biases, pundit "analysis", etc. can get in the way of what the objective final goal of technology should be - get the obviously wrong calls corrected in a minimum amount of time. The type of call that should be the benchmark for VAR to overturn is the Liverpool goal against West Ham from (I believe) 2019. That was a clear offside that VAR could check in 30 seconds and clearly see without lines that there was an offside.
I can't speak for other fans, but for me I am completely fine with a very close offside call like this one reverting to the call on the field. We don't need the game delayed 3-4 minutes to have an official try to pick the exact moment of contact and then try to draw lines accurately to determine offside position. You have three different items, and the odds of getting total precision and accuracy on all three is next to zero. So accept that fact and recognize that you want to get the clearly obvious calls reversed. Let the pundits and fans do all the photo-shopping they want to do. They are only making themselves look silly.