European 'Super League' and ECFC

[John William]

The thing with offside though is that it is essentially a line decision (leaving interfering aside). You are either onside or offside. When they started to use technology it was always going to be as it is with offside. There is no grey area. What constitutes a "tight" offside? All you will do is move the line fractionally one way or the other. You will still get complaints.

There is no grey area.

Oh yes there is. You are assuming (a) the lines are accurate (dubious, they are often criticised on the TV) and (b) the point at which the ball is kicked is accurately defined (VERY dubious). I believe they have a choice of several frames to decide the point at which the picture is frozen - stop motion films of balls being kicked show they deform for several frames before losing contact with the player's foot and do not regain their circular shape for a frame or two afterwards. Which frame is chosen determines marginal offsides - first frame he is on, last frame he is off.

But I agree you will still get complaints, as you do with marginal fouls / yellow / red cards, football is not a game of absolutes. That is what you have referees for.

Which is why VAR should be restricted to ADVISING the referees, it should not be allowed to INSTRUCT them.

Assistant not boss.

 

[Spoonz Red E]

The thing with offside though is that it is essentially a line decision (leaving interfering aside). You are either onside or offside. When they started to use technology it was always going to be as it is with offside. There is no grey area. What constitutes a "tight" offside? All you will do is move the line fractionally one way or the other. You will still get complaints.

An an aside, has the change in the handball definition to say "the sleeve" is ok caused more disallowed goals through offside (with the offside line of the attacker now often drawn further forward) than allowed through actual contact with "the sleeve"?

There could be a solution but it would need a rewrite of the offside rule.

Determine that the offside position is evaluated by foot position only - disregarding other body parts.
Allow a one foot (12") leeway to replace the attacker's benefit of the doubt.

If you want to monitor with technology then have a regulated position for a tracking chip in boots.
Use existing tracking technology.

Personally, I'd rather leave it to the ref with VAR as a check.
So, for example, ref says 'not offside'.
VAR pulls up a check if the technology says the attacker's leading boot is ahead by more than 12". Offside is given.
Otherwise - ref's decision stands even if the attacker was marginally ahead.

This would reduce the technical delays.
Most current VAR calls would not be flagged up if it was just a matter of a gnat's breadth difference causing the 'offside' (or a dropped shoulder or an outstretched arm or a rock and roll pompadour).

 

[Rosencrantz]

There could be a solution but it would need a rewrite of the offside rule.

Determine that the offside position is evaluated by foot position only - disregarding other body parts.
Allow a one foot (12") leeway to replace the attacker's benefit of the doubt.

If you want to monitor with technology then have a regulated position for a tracking chip in boots.
Use existing tracking technology.

Personally, I'd rather leave it to the ref with VAR as a check.
So, for example, ref says 'not offside'.
VAR pulls up a check if the technology says the attacker's leading boot is ahead by more than 12". Offside is given.
Otherwise - ref's decision stands even if the attacker was marginally ahead.

This would reduce the technical delays.
Most current VAR calls would not be flagged up if it was just a matter of a gnat's breadth difference causing the 'offside' (or a dropped shoulder or an outstretched arm or a rock and roll pompadour).

I've been saying to GrecIan for a while since VAR came in that it would be much easier to use the players feet alone as the defining measure rather than any part of the body that can legally score as it is now.

As for the 12"...you will still get moans as the lino's flag goes up and it's disallowed on the lino's call at one end but given at the other because the lino kept his flag down. It will always be thus. Having a tolerance in what should be a straight forward line decision will only muddy things further IMO. The ball is either in or out of play, offside is really the same.

If you are going to use technology, then you use the best available at the time like DRS in cricket where there is a growing call to do away with umpires call on LBW decisions. For line decisions in cricket though, which offside is more equated to, there are no tolerances unless there is doubt because the third umpire cannot get a good enough view, because the technology (ie the camara) is obscured in someway. Otherwise the batman is in or out.

 

[sidney]

Can I also ask: what has happened to the quick free kick?

 

[Colesman Ballz]

Can I also ask: what has happened to the quick free kick?

Still alive and kicking at Villa v Spurs leading to Ollie's assist, although as per usual there was a Spurs defender loitering in the vicinity, who only made a half hearted attempted to impede it.

 

[Alistair20000]

Faking head injury is my pet peeve. The teams managed by the Cowleys and Ainsworth have this down to a fine art. Booking for this too.

IMO the answer re. VAR would be a combination of:

* VAR advises ref who makes the final decision, not VAR makes the decision plus:-
* they advise there is a "clear and obvious error" to overturn on-field decision
* they only contact the ref for tight offsides, with a presumption of "umpire's call" - the attacker getting the benefit of the doubt.

I have no expectation of change however, Stockley Park is such a power trip for the people in charge and the TV companies love the delay and controversy.

Thank goodness we are never likely to have 20+ cameras at SJP

The “clear and obvious error” principle underpins DRS in cricket. It is there to overturn the howler. It would be better if VAR followed that principle.

 

[Rosencrantz]

The “clear and obvious error” principle underpins DRS in cricket. It is there to overturn the howler. It would be better if VAR followed that principle.

That's what DRS was brought in for, to get rid of the howler. It hasn't turned out that way though really has it. If it was, the Captains wouldn't have any say if a decision gets sent upstairs, often on a wing and a prayer. You would just go to DRS for any decision that contains some doubt with the third umpire having a quick look at the replay and saying "hold on a sec". The howlers don't generally need ball tracking to see the ball's pitched a few inches outside leg or struck the batsman well outside or snicko to detect the batsman has punched the cover off the ball to short leg. A large percentage of the decisions DRS is used for are marginal or delusional from the Captain. And then you get Stokes plumb in front with a couple of runs needed at Headingley but the howler stands*.

*

 

[Alistair20000]

That's what DRS was brought in for, to get rid of the howler. It hasn't turned out that way though really has it. If it was, the Captains wouldn't have any say if a decision gets sent upstairs, often on a wing and a prayer. You would just go to DRS for any decision that contains some doubt with the third umpire having a quick look at the replay and saying "hold on a sec". The howlers don't generally need ball tracking to see the ball's pitched a few inches outside leg or struck the batsman well outside or snicko to detect the batsman has punched the cover off the ball to short leg. A large percentage of the decisions DRS is used for are marginal or delusional from the Captain. And then you get Stokes plumb in front with a couple of runs needed at Headingley but the howler stands*.

*

The mission creep principle isn’t it.

I would not mind if the third umpire was given the say on whether to review rather than leaving this to the captains.

In all of this it is the absolute howler that needs to be corrected.

DRS seems to work much better than VAR overall

 

[Rosencrantz]

The mission creep principle isn’t it.

I would not mind if the third umpire was given the say on whether to review rather than leaving this to the captains.

In all of this it is the absolute howler that needs to be corrected.

DRS seems to work much better than VAR overall

Most of that is because of the people using it. After one replay of John Stones challenge the other night at Villa it was obvious that the ref would need another look. Why did the VAR ref have to go through umpteen replays and angles before sending the ref to the monitor? People blame VAR as if it's a sentient being but it's just what we already knew. A lot of our refs are a bit rubbish. And better communication is needed also, like in rugby and cricket.

 

[sidney]

With VAR and offside, I suspect the best solution would be to restrict the decision to the position of the feet, and then to give the benefit of the doubt to the attacker where the offending foot is less than six inches or 10 centimetres beyond that of the defender. This then becomes 'clear and obvious'. Importantly, it also allows for what previous posters have pointed out: VAR is not exact. This would mean quite a few more goals, which would probably be a good thing.