Got something to say or just want fewer pesky ads? Join us... 😊

[Albion] Offside?



beorhthelm

A. Virgo, Football Genius
Jul 21, 2003
35,211
They have several VAR cameras and all the broadcast angles to choose from. So they can choose the one that shows the body part clearly and draw the line using that angle. When they then switch angles to assess other relevant information, the line stays in place. The cameras are calibrated to work together and even take into account the camber of the pitch.

It's precision Hawk-Eye technology, not someone putting a straight line across a single still frame as TV companies used to do. That explains why some stills that look onside/offside on traditional coverage were misleading. It's a different outcome once the viewing angle has been accounted for.

Personally, I hate it as it takes too long and there's nowhere near the leeway there should be in a high speed sport - but the process is pretty much sound.
it is someone putting lines on their screen, going back and forth to select a frame. we saw exactly how it works in the mis-communication fiasco weeks ago. there is no hawkeye here because they cannot track 22 people and a ball, all moving at variable speed across hundreds of sq meters. hawkeye relies on camera aligned to static lines, only the ball has to be tracked.
 

The Rivet

Well-known member
Aug 9, 2011
4,511
I still think for me the telling point is the frame they used for the decision. As others have said the ball 'streak' from Pascal striking it is VERY telling. It must have traveled at least a foot by the time the frame is captured. Therefore incorrect frame to work from results in incorrect decision!
 


sussex_guy2k2

Well-known member
Jun 6, 2014
3,609
My weekly reminder that VAR offside is NOT scientific or accurate and therefore it shouldn't be used for tight decisions. Especially by morons.
And therein lies its biggest issue. The tech’s not the problem, it’s the fact we’ve added more idiots to the decision making process.

And all I know ever hear is how it evens itself out. No it doesn’t. And if it does, we’re not going to lose another game for the couple of years with all the decisions we’re due.
 

Kinky Gerbil

Im The Scatman
NSC Licker Extraordinaire
Jul 16, 2003
57,662
hassocks
The technology is needed. Unfortunately no one could’ve legislated for the people implementing it, who’ve been nothing short of atrocious at their jobs from day one.

It's not needed, nothing was wrong with the game before,Mistakes happened - annoying, certainly, but not this amount and the game has been changed for VAR.
 


Possibly controversial but I preferred offside pre VAR. Linesmen will make mistakes and the odd clanger but generally they got most correct, the ones they got wrong were so so tight so it felt more acceptable than these today.
Yeh that’s definitely my memory of NSC, we all accepted match official mistakes with a hearty good spirit and never mentioned them again - the chap whose name we couldn’t type into NSC at one point was actually a figure of immense respect really, we were just joshing
 

BadFish

Huge Member
Oct 19, 2003
16,935
Some of those that demanded VAR know they have been duped, they are just doubling down at this point.
I demanded VAR because I thought it would assist refs to make more correct decisions.

I didn't really bargain for how inept the refs and rules are that they still make stupid bloody decisions.

What is clear to me though is that the notion of refs being up against it because of the speed of the game etc etc is bollox. Even with assistance they are inept.

We are down 4 points from the last two games because of these nuggets, wonder if that will 'even itself out'.
 


kevo

Well-known member
Mar 8, 2008
9,060
Let's just nip some of these comments in the bud.

1) it doesn't need to be a clear and obvious error for an offside. All goals are assessed for offside, clear and obvious only applies to fouls/serious foul play.

2) the line is drawn to the shoulder which is above the elbow.

That being said: f*** this anti-football decision.
This is why I despise VAR. Dunk is to alk intents level but the benefit of the doubt goes to the defending team. They can NEVER be 100% sure where the lines should be drawn, the technology isn't there. But a team has scored a goal. LET'S FIND A REASON TO DISALLOW IT.

f*** them.
 

Weststander

Well-known member
NSC Licker Extraordinaire
Aug 25, 2011
62,765
Withdean area
It's not needed, nothing was wrong with the game before,Mistakes happened - annoying, certainly, but not this amount and the game has been changed for VAR.

I wanted VAR to stop the injustices.

But for ages now I’d wish it would go away. Putting to one side the incredible gaffs and micro analysis to disallow goals, the long delays in play are bloody awful. Add that to the blatant momentum-ending cheating from Fulham and Villa, and a previously high octane game has become a stop start affair.
 
Last edited:


trueblue

Well-known member
Jul 5, 2003
10,263
Hove
it is someone putting lines on their screen, going back and forth to select a frame. we saw exactly how it works in the mis-communication fiasco weeks ago. there is no hawkeye here because they cannot track 22 people and a ball, all moving at variable speed across hundreds of sq meters. hawkeye relies on camera aligned to static lines, only the ball has to be tracked.
HawkEye run the system. Nobody said they’re tracking 22 people. From all the cameras available, they usually have a clear view which will allow the vertical line to be generated from the correct point on the body. From this the lines that show whether the player is onside or offside are generated, automatically taking into account the topography of that ground and - crucially - adapting the line to allow for the camera angle. Whether or not you can mark the exact frame is a moot point. The lines are NOT added on in the way they would have been on a traditional TV graphic. Don’t see the relevance of the incident you’re talking about. The issue was nothing at all to do with the technology - just the VAR forgetting what the on-field decision had been.

I’m no fan of VAR any more but it really is amazing that people are still saying things like ‘the lines are bent’ and ‘how can they possibly tell from that angle?’ You’re looking at a 2D image but it’s merely an illustration, constructed using information from several angles. If this article is up to date then it clarifies they no longer show the whole process - just a still image which illustrates the final decision. For obvious reasons, that will ideally be the one that shows the players in relation to the kicker, defenders and the goal - but it’s not necessarily the angle they initially used to mark the points on the body.
https://www.premierleague.com/news/1488423
 
Last edited:

Kalimantan Gull

Well-known member
Aug 13, 2003
12,835
Central Borneo / the Lizard
Maybe the line down is close enough to Dunks shoulder, however, the line down from Tarkowski's shoulder doesn't seem to come down to the grass where he is, looks to me like the red line across the pitch is where the blue line should be, as it is it's level with his ankle where his sock stops, not the bottom of his invisible boot. All in all, it's too close and too poor a still to say it was offside, and probably should have been a frame earlier than this that was used too.
Yeah, i was thinking the same, how do they know where ground level is on a 2d frame? Feels like the foreshortening problem they have in cricket when checking catches.

And like that sport they surely need some kind of 'umpires call' built in for uncertainty in the process.
 

wellquickwoody

Many More Voting Years
NSC Licker Extraordinaire
Aug 10, 2007
13,567
Melbourne
VAR is killing the live football experience. In this case we really cannot know whether Dunk was offside or not. What we do know is that the line should NOT be drawn from his hand, also that Fergusons position should have no bearing on the decision, and that the fans at the ground had their celebrations muted until cancelled once again. Should be removed completely.

PS I have not seen an Albion game in the flesh for four years.
 


Uh_huh_him

Well-known member
Sep 28, 2011
10,429
This is all solved if they stop pretending it’s super accurate and bin off the poxy lines. Ref and Lino decide goal or no goal and VaR checks it with the naked eye. If they can’t see with the naked eye the decision is wrong then the decision stands. Similar to umpire’s call in cricket
This!
It's well established that the technology is not precise enough to make these calls.
The technology in cricket has a much higher chance of being consistently correct and yet a margin for error is factored in.
Goals that looked acceptable to everyone, and technology does not provide definitive proof , should always stand.
 

Albion and Premier League latest from Sky Sports

Paying the bills

Latest Discussions

Paying the bills

Paying the bills

Paying the bills


Top