A&H

Palace v Leeds

The Referee Store
review using 'normal' freeze frame - if too close to call its 'level' and onside

I'd just change one thing - If it's too close to call, then the call on the field stands. In American football, the starting point is the call made on the field. If the video evidence clearly and obviously shows the the call on the field should be reversed, then reverse it.
 
Agree - 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.
Due to the immense marketing engine behind football, I don't think there's any evidence of decline in spectator numbers in professional football
I'm sure the same is not true of grass roots football. Participation in the full size game is pathetic compared to years gone by. FIFA can add these facts to what they're accountable for, but they won't care, just like they don't care about the influence professional footballers have on the behaviour of our kids.
The only way we'll see FIFA reverse their rhetoric on VAR, is if it starts to hurt them in the pocket. Unfortunately, the marketing power means we're past the point of no return
 
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?
It would add a layer of complexity, for sure.
Think it could definitely work with VAR, but not sure I could cope with it as a AR without the benefit of a second look.
I think, feet on side works.
Would make your idea simpler, but also make the whole job of being an AR easier too, as you could focus on the feet and not worry about other body parts.
Suspect you'd see more accurate calls too
 
Position of feet always was/is the answer. It beggars belief that we're not doing it already tbh.

The position of your feet dictate where you are on the pitch if you're stood on em. Same as for throw-ins, GK on penalty kicks etc.

But no, off side position can't just be that simple can it ... :rolleyes:
 
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?

In theory, I like this idea. In practice, I don't see how the human brain can process this level of information at the speed we would need when we are concerned about so many other things as ARs. Maybe just looking at feet is good for offside, but ARs are still looking for a lot of other things on the field in addition to offside.

I still think the best approach for offside with VAR is to 1) recognize it's a very difficult on-field call, 2) go with the on-field call unless there is clear and obvious visual evidence that the call on the field was not correct, and 3) get rid of the charade that referees drawing lines and stopping the video at the exact moment of contact with the ball is 100% precise and accurate - in other words, review the video without lines and overturn calls that the naked eye can determine is clearly wrong. Let the amateurs play with colors on the screen and let them look foolish for trying to do this.
 
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.
 
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! :cool:

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.
 
Ok, i’ll Mock it! :cool:

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.

You could also go the whole hog and (should technology allow) put trackers or similar into boots to allow accurate assessments of where the feet are at any time.
 
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'!
 
  • Like
Reactions: Kes
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'!

It's something I'd thought of before, but I think you're right, makes it incredibly tough without VAR so probably never going to happen
 
It would need to be attacker's feet v defender's feet, of course...
If so, I'm right on board with this
 
Attacker's feet (that could be wearing any coloured boots) vs defenders feet (that could also be wearing any coloured boots)?

As @es1 says, that's a solution that works for VAR, but 99% of all football in the world doesn't happen with VAR. Is an increase in consistency/accuracy at the very top level worth causing massive disruption to the rest of the sport? I'm not so sure.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
I agree with this too. There should be an option to go with on field call when the Margin of error is too low.
 
  • Like
Reactions: es1
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 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.
 
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.
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.
 
Back
Top