What if the match is played at night?
Wengers/FIFA’s offside proposal
- Thread starter Eddie
- Start date
You guess
no different to normal in my case!
one
RefChat Addict
I think we have agreed that it will be much harder without VAR. I think it's even harder than what most would think. What we first picture is an attacker and defender side by side and we are looking for daylight. Now imagine a close call with attacker on the far touchline and defender in the middle or near touchline. This will be much harder than the current system and even harder when the AR is slightly out of position (when some mental geometry and guesswork is involved).
As has already been said, it isn't a case of daylight, that is over simplifying it. If the torso is the furthest forward / back part of the body then perhaps that will be a visible clue, but as we see so often with VAR reviews now it is often a trailing leg or leading armpit that the decision has to be made on.
I just don't see how Wenger's suggestion improves anything, and it certainly won't take any controversy away.
I just don't see how Wenger's suggestion improves anything, and it certainly won't take any controversy away.
Personally never been a fan of this idea, although I do understand it. It doesn’t sit right that a decision could be wrong because they didn’t have a second extra to spot the mistake. I like the Dutch method, where if the two lines overlap, they stick with the decision (or give the goal, can’t remember if it’s giving the goal, or sticking with the AR)
Peter Grove
RefChat Addict
They stick with the on-field decision by the AR.
I also like this system and I don't believe it does fall into the trap of just moving the decision point (whereas Wenger's proposal does). It doesn't change where the lines are drawn, it just introduces a greater margin of error and means those ultra-precise, infinitesimal decisions that everyone objects to, are avoided.
As a spokesperson for the KNVB has been quoted as saying:
What this system avoids, is the credibility problem inherent in the fact that we know the frame rate of broadcast cameras used for VAR is not accurate enough to know for certain if a player is centimetres offside.
VAR uses the television broadcast cameras that usually run at 50 frames per second, meaning that players running at full speed can move nearly 20cm between frames.
By deliberately making the decision process more "fuzzy," it compensates for the impreciseness of the system being used.
one
RefChat Addict
I don't know the minor details of the Dutch system but that could have problems of its own beaded on the technology used and level of human intervention.
How thick are the lines? Does the line thickness change as the camera distance (zoom) is further in or out? What is the resolution and what is a definition of touching lines (edges of line are often blurry in images)?
How thick are the lines? Does the line thickness change as the camera distance (zoom) is further in or out? What is the resolution and what is a definition of touching lines (edges of line are often blurry in images)?
Agree with what you were saying but a minor detail: the system being used is very precise; the problem is that it's not accurate.
just changes the debate to the width of the lines and how many mm apart the lines are etc. etc.
I'm not totally convinced by this - given the small number of decisions that would be changed (as proven by Dale Johnson), I think it's a psychological adjustment to an actual real problem. Decisions that currently "feel" wrong will continue to feel wrong in this new system as well and again, there are still potential issues regarding the amount of fuzziness and if lines are actually touching or not.
I do think that if you're going to go for this solution, you also need to bake in another adjustment I've seen suggested - placement of each line must be done WITHOUT the other line on screen. If you place the defensive line and are then choosing a point on an attacker to mark, there are going to be various forces incentivising you to either make the two lines touch or not. It must be done with a multi-step process:
Place defensive line - reset image to unlined picture
Place attacking line - overlay the two images
Make decision without adjusting the image at all.
Last edited:
santa sangria
RefChat Addict
It's going to be just as hard to judge as the current law - because, most of the time, the "daylight" will be between different body parts at different heights - between the heel and an armpit, or an a**e and an elbow (OK, not an elbow, a head) 
When all said and done, once this offside pickle is considered in its entirety, the only way to do away with all these imponderables, is to re-instate the ARs to do their jobs and for the football community to realize the error of their ways and accept human error and ITOOTR
socal lurker
RefChat Addict
I think it will definitely affect grassroots. As an attacker makes a run past the defensive line, it's the difference between the AR looking at the front foot and the back foot, which can be over a yard of distance. I'd like to think that as an AR I don't miss OS calls by that margin on a routine basis.
(If you mean games without ARs, then I can see your point. (We use ARs on much lower games here in the US than I understand y'all do in the UK.)
ben_white161
New Member
Would adding a margin of error make it work better for VAR, professional football and for grass roots? And on marginal calls giving the benefit of doubt to the attacking player.
I think adding the word "clearly" to the law could dramatically improve things.
A player is in an offside position if any part of the head, body or feet is clearly nearer to the opponents’ goal line than both the ball and the second-last opponent.
A VAR check would just be a quick replay, as someone above suggested, if you need lines then the benefit of doubt goes to the attacker. No more arm pits or single studs ruling out goals that no one had gained an unfair advantage.
No more pundits discussing millimetres and whether lines are correct.
Let's face it, as an AR, a tight call can never be clinically accurate, it's always a judgment so it would be better to let the law reflect that.
If an attacker were a few inches offside you'd be right in either flagging or letting play go on, obviously gross mistakes would still be just that but the football would be better and we'd hopefully face less criticism.
I think adding the word "clearly" to the law could dramatically improve things.
A player is in an offside position if any part of the head, body or feet is clearly nearer to the opponents’ goal line than both the ball and the second-last opponent.
A VAR check would just be a quick replay, as someone above suggested, if you need lines then the benefit of doubt goes to the attacker. No more arm pits or single studs ruling out goals that no one had gained an unfair advantage.
No more pundits discussing millimetres and whether lines are correct.
Let's face it, as an AR, a tight call can never be clinically accurate, it's always a judgment so it would be better to let the law reflect that.
If an attacker were a few inches offside you'd be right in either flagging or letting play go on, obviously gross mistakes would still be just that but the football would be better and we'd hopefully face less criticism.
Take away the lines, cue match of the day and sky and bt drawing lines to create controversy.
Yes, it probably works well in application but the same old problems remain
Just moves the argument to "where does clearly start".
one
RefChat Addict
Draw no lines. Make offside a subjective decision with its clear and obvious error criteria. At least we have only one problem to deal with. Knowing and applying C&O error.
As for media. Stop worrying about them as they would attempt to create controversy no matter what you do. If we get the C&O right, the worst they would come up with drawing their own line is proving the AR wrong by a few inches. That would not be a huge controversy.
As for media. Stop worrying about them as they would attempt to create controversy no matter what you do. If we get the C&O right, the worst they would come up with drawing their own line is proving the AR wrong by a few inches. That would not be a huge controversy.
Problem there is the camera is rarely inline with the possible offside offence, so without drawing lines there is too much guesswork, hence why assistants have to be inline to credibly give offside decisions.
All that would happen is the broadcasters would use the technology to draw lines to prove the decision made was wrong. It just shifts the problem slightly, doesn't fix anything and in all reality decreases the percentage of correct decisions.
I still come back to clubs, managers, players, supporters, etc, all got what they asked for. They all moaned bitterly when players were given offside or onside by millimetres so technology was brought in to pander to their whims and make it more forensically accurate. I find those moaning about it now very similar to those who voted for Brexit and are now bemoaning the fact they can't go and retire to Spain. Tough, very much a case of be careful what you wish for.
I have sympathy with the match officials who are getting grief for something that isn't of their doing, but that is about it.